Even our lot are at it. This from ITN reports on how the UK intends to lay a claim with the UN to a million square kilometres of seabed off the coast of Antarctica.
This is rather against "the spirit of 1959 Antarctic Treaty, to which Britain is a signatory, which prevents all exploitation of oil gas and minerals, other than for scientific research."
But don't worry, because our claim will only be 'theoretical' for the time being. So that's OK then.
Addendum:
This from Guardian CIF (18/10/07) makes a couple of very interesting points on this very subject, not least the one pointing out that it somewhat reeks of hypocrisy....
"That's why the most reprehensible part of this latest "sea-grab" is that our government, while claiming to be a world leader on climate change, is seeking to increase its supply of the very fuels that brought about this crisis."
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Spice as nice
Tesco recruits Spice Girls for Christmas campaign
I read that what they really, really want is a Lear each in case of hissy fits en route.
If true, I'll be interested to see how that gets worked into the green agenda.
Every little bit helps!
Guardian - If you wanna be my grocer
Mad - Will Tesco be the first and last Spice sponsor?
Speaking of getting 'on board', for an entity keen on 'looking' green at least, the predilections of Squander Spices will make for an interesting sell.
Hers and hers Priuses to the Lears to see how ethically the sweatshops are run?
I read that what they really, really want is a Lear each in case of hissy fits en route.
If true, I'll be interested to see how that gets worked into the green agenda.
Every little bit helps!
Guardian - If you wanna be my grocer
Mad - Will Tesco be the first and last Spice sponsor?
Speaking of getting 'on board', for an entity keen on 'looking' green at least, the predilections of Squander Spices will make for an interesting sell.
Hers and hers Priuses to the Lears to see how ethically the sweatshops are run?
Autumn Cleaning
It was only in looking at some stuff about Blog Action Day just now that I realised one could change the blog format. Well, D'uh.
So I had a play. Hope you like it. I think this clean style is more reflective of the main site.
If not... we can change. Don'tcha just love digital!
So I had a play. Hope you like it. I think this clean style is more reflective of the main site.
If not... we can change. Don'tcha just love digital!
Not the word I'd use, but nice anyway
'Hero' is an awkward word to have applied, and after Jeremy Clarkson's notable VC winners' TV programme I have tried to avoid using it unless really warranted.
Hence it was with mixed feelings that I was surprised to find I had a) been nominated and b) won the regional round of such a thing in a competition from FOCUS DIY.
I was told a wee while ago, but have long learned to not get too excited until the cheque clears. Or, in this case, I got handed the vouchers. The missus was thrilled that at last Junkk.com has made some money until become apparent this was going on yet more DIY stuff (most likely the Forest Certified shed above).
Anyways, I came, I posed, I gurned. I even made a few suggestions on what to stand in front of. I gave a big thumbs up to the 3 for 2 insulation deal in one. And I got some Junkk goodies in camera.
I'm sure it will make the locals, but with luck it may go further.
I think that I will refer to it more as a Green Award, though.
Cynical... nous?
Toothless ASA
Who is not aware of ad campaigns that had the realities of such as the ASA's procedures factored into the production shedules?
I was recently told of one guerilla ad/marketing/PR coordinated 'launch' that involved doing something designed to:
a) Get complained about (PR)
b) If that doesn't work naturally, make sure it does via a tame Daily Mail reporter
c) Make a fuss about being complained about (more PR)
d) Concede (even more PR)
e) Make a fuss of the compromise (yeah, you guessed it)
f) Try and score a puff peice in the Sunday's about how it all happened (yawn)
Did I miss anything?
It's often worth looking at just how large the print run is as this can still involve a cost disincentive if it is a full national.
Digital means so much can be a one off that is easily, and cheaply sacrificed.
Are they still eligible for awards if pulled?
ASA gets tough on advertising green claims
Climate Change Corp - Public gets wise to ‘greenwashing’
Wise yes, but still poorly served in making good decisions. And the current situation serves the overall cause of better environmental practice and behaviours poorly.
You have kindly added, in the form of the 'FTSE 100 greenwashers and greenwinners' survey, yet another interesting if rather meaningless effort to muddy already murky waters.
At least M&S is at the top of this one, as it was in another I had, but yet another had Tesco tops. Three in one week. What's a consumer to do?
Probably, and I'm just guessing here, ignore the whole lot. Which makes them very expensive exercises in a thriving and lucrative comms industry that has little to DO with actually making much difference on the ground with the majority of individuals who matter.
Who is not aware of ad campaigns that had the realities of such as the ASA's procedures factored into the production shedules?
I was recently told of one guerilla ad/marketing/PR coordinated 'launch' that involved doing something designed to:
a) Get complained about (PR)
b) If that doesn't work naturally, make sure it does via a tame Daily Mail reporter
c) Make a fuss about being complained about (more PR)
d) Concede (even more PR)
e) Make a fuss of the compromise (yeah, you guessed it)
f) Try and score a puff peice in the Sunday's about how it all happened (yawn)
Did I miss anything?
It's often worth looking at just how large the print run is as this can still involve a cost disincentive if it is a full national.
Digital means so much can be a one off that is easily, and cheaply sacrificed.
Are they still eligible for awards if pulled?
ASA gets tough on advertising green claims
Climate Change Corp - Public gets wise to ‘greenwashing’
Wise yes, but still poorly served in making good decisions. And the current situation serves the overall cause of better environmental practice and behaviours poorly.
You have kindly added, in the form of the 'FTSE 100 greenwashers and greenwinners' survey, yet another interesting if rather meaningless effort to muddy already murky waters.
At least M&S is at the top of this one, as it was in another I had, but yet another had Tesco tops. Three in one week. What's a consumer to do?
Probably, and I'm just guessing here, ignore the whole lot. Which makes them very expensive exercises in a thriving and lucrative comms industry that has little to DO with actually making much difference on the ground with the majority of individuals who matter.
More on Carbcon Offsets
As I have noticed a lot of the 'stopping asking questions, if it's green it MUST be good' flak I get seems to come from consultants/cies who offer carbon offsets as part of their paid day jobs, this caught my eye: Is carbon offsetting the solution? (Or part of the problem?)
Now, as with a few other eyebrow-tweaking phrases from those on the enviro desk at our major media, the obligatory start or end sentence gets me going every time: 'I feel guilty because as a privileged westerner with an addiction to air travel...' Not to mention all your other buddies, feeling less guilty, flying to wherever to cover whatever (Maddy, the latest fashion), or in the ad department selling space to the airlines. It seems... thin.
Anyway, offsets. That is what he came to Uganda to find out.
Because... he's fond of trees - he once spent two weeks trekking through the Bolivian cloud forest in search of one. Oooooo...k.
So we find out that Tom Morton, Climate Care's managing director, clearly finds criticisms exasperating. He acknowledges that some people in Kibale may have complaints, but says that when he travelled there recently with the Co-op's head of ethics, the community was happy with the way the park was being managed and content with their access to its resources. I am sure a great time was had by all. This is not proving any easy swallow.
I do not deny folk the need to earn a living. Nor do I censure them for it. I do get offside when others do... especially if it seems a little one sided on the sacrifice front between those doing the telling and those being so asked.
Actually in this case it seems a balanced article and we need to allow such journalism to happen.
But in a world without 4x4s, I couldn't help wondering how they would have got their convoy anywhere in a Prius. And I bet they weren't drinking tap water either.
Me, I think I'll stick with not cutting existing forests down for now. It seems more... productive.
Now, as with a few other eyebrow-tweaking phrases from those on the enviro desk at our major media, the obligatory start or end sentence gets me going every time: 'I feel guilty because as a privileged westerner with an addiction to air travel...' Not to mention all your other buddies, feeling less guilty, flying to wherever to cover whatever (Maddy, the latest fashion), or in the ad department selling space to the airlines. It seems... thin.
Anyway, offsets. That is what he came to Uganda to find out.
Because... he's fond of trees - he once spent two weeks trekking through the Bolivian cloud forest in search of one. Oooooo...k.
So we find out that Tom Morton, Climate Care's managing director, clearly finds criticisms exasperating. He acknowledges that some people in Kibale may have complaints, but says that when he travelled there recently with the Co-op's head of ethics, the community was happy with the way the park was being managed and content with their access to its resources. I am sure a great time was had by all. This is not proving any easy swallow.
I do not deny folk the need to earn a living. Nor do I censure them for it. I do get offside when others do... especially if it seems a little one sided on the sacrifice front between those doing the telling and those being so asked.
Actually in this case it seems a balanced article and we need to allow such journalism to happen.
But in a world without 4x4s, I couldn't help wondering how they would have got their convoy anywhere in a Prius. And I bet they weren't drinking tap water either.
Me, I think I'll stick with not cutting existing forests down for now. It seems more... productive.
‘One person, one permit’ emissions plan
From FT.com, on an EU plan to allocate carbon permits on a per capita basis post Kyoto.
It looks like things are going to get very interesting!
It looks like things are going to get very interesting!
Mass extinction and the earth's vanishing biodiversity
Every now and again you come across something that really makes you sit up and take notice. This, by Julia Whitty, featured on the Mother Jones (MoJo) site, is one such.
Its a fairly long article, and one I somehow missed back in April, but which I thoroughly recommend.
A couple of extracts follow, but please do read the article in full.
"A poll by the American Museum of Natural History finds that 7 in 10 biologists believe that mass extinction poses a colossal threat to human existence, a more serious environmental problem than even its contributor, global warming, and that the dangers of mass extinction are woefully underestimated by most everyone outside of science."
"All these disappearing species are part of a fragile membrane of organisms wrapped around Earth so thin, writes E.O. Wilson, that it "cannot be seen edgewise from a space shuttle, yet so internally complex that most species composing it remain undiscovered." We owe everything to this membrane of life. Literally everything. The air we breathe. The food we eat. The materials of our homes, clothes, books, computers, medicines. Goods and services that we can't even imagine we'll someday need will come from species we have yet to identify. The proverbial cure for cancer. The genetic fountain of youth. Immortality. Mortality.
Its a fairly long article, and one I somehow missed back in April, but which I thoroughly recommend.
A couple of extracts follow, but please do read the article in full.
"A poll by the American Museum of Natural History finds that 7 in 10 biologists believe that mass extinction poses a colossal threat to human existence, a more serious environmental problem than even its contributor, global warming, and that the dangers of mass extinction are woefully underestimated by most everyone outside of science."
"All these disappearing species are part of a fragile membrane of organisms wrapped around Earth so thin, writes E.O. Wilson, that it "cannot be seen edgewise from a space shuttle, yet so internally complex that most species composing it remain undiscovered." We owe everything to this membrane of life. Literally everything. The air we breathe. The food we eat. The materials of our homes, clothes, books, computers, medicines. Goods and services that we can't even imagine we'll someday need will come from species we have yet to identify. The proverbial cure for cancer. The genetic fountain of youth. Immortality. Mortality.
The living membrane we so recklessly destroy is existence itself."
Bjorn Again
I need a new acronym: Look Out, My Book On [non-green manta issue here] Requires Guardianophobes - Sucked dry
Feel free to tweak. Basically, I have a small issue with anything controversial that has a book (£18.99 from the Guardian) attached, and is accompanied (to the benefit of both main protagonists) with an author article in a potentially hostile audience's medium.
Hey ho. I love the smell of ratings in the morning.
Actually, I find much (not all!!!!) of what he says compelling. Plus the calm and balanced nature of his delivery appeals, vs. the near frantic hysteria of many who defend almost anything green that must be good. And as one who cops it a lot just for asking a question or two, it does make you feel like kicking back. So imagine how consumers, already being 'told' to stop fun stuff (and often by a load of folk, from jetting pols to fashion-conscious celebs to their remora-like chums in the media (love the skiing ads guys)) may be reacting.
Guardian - Cool it - is global warming a myth? - Surprisingly few posts... so far.
'Cool it - is global warming a myth?'
As it invites a slew of extremes from 'both' 'sides' to have an opinion on causes and/or mitigations, I first just ask a few questions, as I seem to see a lot of stuff in the media, from here to the BBC to what Al Gore did/didn't claim, or the judge on his case, or the IPPC, or...
Anyway:
a) Is it 'global warming'?
b) Is it 'climate change'?
c) Is it 'definitely man-made climate change'?
d) Is it 'man-worsened climate change'?
e) Is it 'probably man-worsened climate change', so rather than argue to the death and end up being dead right or dead wrong it can't hurt to look at practical ways to deal with it just in case. And it wouldn't hurt to cut back and waste less anyway'?.
f) None of the above?
I am interested, because all bar one (the one I favour, and the basis upon which I shape my actions) seem to set their 'all or nothing' advocates up for hefty falls (along with a few billion others). Plus they really don't serve the cause of persuading the vast, still unsure majority with reason and incentive.
If you only shout in argument, people tend to cover their ears. And that suits who?
Feel free to tweak. Basically, I have a small issue with anything controversial that has a book (£18.99 from the Guardian) attached, and is accompanied (to the benefit of both main protagonists) with an author article in a potentially hostile audience's medium.
Hey ho. I love the smell of ratings in the morning.
Actually, I find much (not all!!!!) of what he says compelling. Plus the calm and balanced nature of his delivery appeals, vs. the near frantic hysteria of many who defend almost anything green that must be good. And as one who cops it a lot just for asking a question or two, it does make you feel like kicking back. So imagine how consumers, already being 'told' to stop fun stuff (and often by a load of folk, from jetting pols to fashion-conscious celebs to their remora-like chums in the media (love the skiing ads guys)) may be reacting.
Guardian - Cool it - is global warming a myth? - Surprisingly few posts... so far.
'Cool it - is global warming a myth?'
As it invites a slew of extremes from 'both' 'sides' to have an opinion on causes and/or mitigations, I first just ask a few questions, as I seem to see a lot of stuff in the media, from here to the BBC to what Al Gore did/didn't claim, or the judge on his case, or the IPPC, or...
Anyway:
a) Is it 'global warming'?
b) Is it 'climate change'?
c) Is it 'definitely man-made climate change'?
d) Is it 'man-worsened climate change'?
e) Is it 'probably man-worsened climate change', so rather than argue to the death and end up being dead right or dead wrong it can't hurt to look at practical ways to deal with it just in case. And it wouldn't hurt to cut back and waste less anyway'?.
f) None of the above?
I am interested, because all bar one (the one I favour, and the basis upon which I shape my actions) seem to set their 'all or nothing' advocates up for hefty falls (along with a few billion others). Plus they really don't serve the cause of persuading the vast, still unsure majority with reason and incentive.
If you only shout in argument, people tend to cover their ears. And that suits who?
What did targets ever do for us?
(With all due homage to Life of Brian) Date for halting childhood obesity slips back 10 years
The government has quietly abandoned its target to halt childhood obesity by 2010, setting instead the goal of reducing it by 2020.
Not enviro, I know, but just as easily could be, across a raft of issues.
Which rather begs the question... other than adding a whole extra layer of expense and inefficiency to the process, or make it easier to award bonuses (during, not on failure to meet) what do these things do?
The government has quietly abandoned its target to halt childhood obesity by 2010, setting instead the goal of reducing it by 2020.
Not enviro, I know, but just as easily could be, across a raft of issues.
Which rather begs the question... other than adding a whole extra layer of expense and inefficiency to the process, or make it easier to award bonuses (during, not on failure to meet) what do these things do?
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Recycle more.... or...
Warning issued over biodegradable plastics
I know precious little about plastics. I do know a little about science, a fair bit about consumers, and more than I ever want to about the various bodies that 'serve' us.
So in I chip:
As one currently embroiled as a consumer advocate (a little more than a little knowledge and just trying to share what 'we' 'might' know to plan for the future in an informed manner) in a now epic debate that's raging between advocates of composting and Food Waste disposers, this piece piqued my interest.
Because I have long wondered what the poor old consumer is to make of the various reuse and recycling options they have, now all the more complex by things being compostable, biodegradable, etc. Or not. And there seems a real issue here between what goes in a bin and ticks a box and what may or may not actually result in more waste and/or greenhouse gasses.
I really, really... really hope that we will soon see some logical logistical measures put in place by business, government and LAs that will not only work together to help the planet, but also can be shared with the public in ways they can a) understand and b) engage with secure that they are doing what's best.
I know precious little about plastics. I do know a little about science, a fair bit about consumers, and more than I ever want to about the various bodies that 'serve' us.
So in I chip:
As one currently embroiled as a consumer advocate (a little more than a little knowledge and just trying to share what 'we' 'might' know to plan for the future in an informed manner) in a now epic debate that's raging between advocates of composting and Food Waste disposers, this piece piqued my interest.
Because I have long wondered what the poor old consumer is to make of the various reuse and recycling options they have, now all the more complex by things being compostable, biodegradable, etc. Or not. And there seems a real issue here between what goes in a bin and ticks a box and what may or may not actually result in more waste and/or greenhouse gasses.
I really, really... really hope that we will soon see some logical logistical measures put in place by business, government and LAs that will not only work together to help the planet, but also can be shared with the public in ways they can a) understand and b) engage with secure that they are doing what's best.
A lot of principals
As the media are abuzz with 'who stabbed Ming' (and I could care less), today I had a PR from the Green Party about their leadership: GREEN PARTY EXECUTIVE ELECTION RESULTS
As they are, well, greener than most, I think it's worth knowing about.
One interesting point, especially in view of the fun and games the other major parties seem to have with their 'leaders', is that these guys don't have one... er.. any.
However, whilst attractive in some ways, in this 'we are all equal' world, especially when it comes to intellectual firepower, I am trying to get my head around (the need for) a male and female 'principal speaker'. Is one for stag parties and one for hen nights?
I know from bitter experience what a 50/50 split can do for company morale if the principals fall out.
As they are, well, greener than most, I think it's worth knowing about.
One interesting point, especially in view of the fun and games the other major parties seem to have with their 'leaders', is that these guys don't have one... er.. any.
However, whilst attractive in some ways, in this 'we are all equal' world, especially when it comes to intellectual firepower, I am trying to get my head around (the need for) a male and female 'principal speaker'. Is one for stag parties and one for hen nights?
I know from bitter experience what a 50/50 split can do for company morale if the principals fall out.
Message from the front
GREENPEACE AND FRIENDS OF THE EARTH - BOTH USING YOUTUBE
Whale & Chips - Can't fault it/them. More power to this kind of activity, which is where Greenpeace excels.
Shop Local - It's well done, and I guess gets a message across. But from my earliest days it was dinned into me by a succession of CDs that, while fun, devoting the majority of your ad to the negative is often taking the easy, soft and otherwise not so effective option.
OK, so there's an exclusive dig at Tesco (missing me completely as we have the choice of Morrisons or Somerfield). Fair 'nuff. I guess they symbolise the evil empire to many (odd they topped the Climate Brand Index thingie on these pages t'other day, though).
But really what else did I get? Some nice local folk were going to vanish. Tell me about it. Our High Street has more boarded up shopfronts and charity shops than there are actual businesses!
It certainly is not easy. And there are a myriad issues to address, from parking convenience to time pressures to costs (though often local can be cheaper) and the fact that council rates are not exactly helping.
It would be neat to see the sense of fun of this execution being injected into a positive branding message for the quality of the produce and the experience.
I love walking the strip and getting fresh food that tastes 100% better, and all with a cheery bit of personal service taboot.
Trouble is, they don't usually offer this on Sundays, which is often the only day I am free to help with the shopping.
ADDENDUM, thanks to Dave -
Talkingretail.com today reports that Tesco comes out on top of a new 'climate brand index'. This has been launched to track consumer perceptions of how a business is performing in terms of climate change issues.
Interesting to note that BP manages second place.
Me again: Meanwhile..... M&S, Sainsbury's and Waitrose top green supermarkets study
Whale & Chips - Can't fault it/them. More power to this kind of activity, which is where Greenpeace excels.
Shop Local - It's well done, and I guess gets a message across. But from my earliest days it was dinned into me by a succession of CDs that, while fun, devoting the majority of your ad to the negative is often taking the easy, soft and otherwise not so effective option.
OK, so there's an exclusive dig at Tesco (missing me completely as we have the choice of Morrisons or Somerfield). Fair 'nuff. I guess they symbolise the evil empire to many (odd they topped the Climate Brand Index thingie on these pages t'other day, though).
But really what else did I get? Some nice local folk were going to vanish. Tell me about it. Our High Street has more boarded up shopfronts and charity shops than there are actual businesses!
It certainly is not easy. And there are a myriad issues to address, from parking convenience to time pressures to costs (though often local can be cheaper) and the fact that council rates are not exactly helping.
It would be neat to see the sense of fun of this execution being injected into a positive branding message for the quality of the produce and the experience.
I love walking the strip and getting fresh food that tastes 100% better, and all with a cheery bit of personal service taboot.
Trouble is, they don't usually offer this on Sundays, which is often the only day I am free to help with the shopping.
ADDENDUM, thanks to Dave -
Talkingretail.com today reports that Tesco comes out on top of a new 'climate brand index'. This has been launched to track consumer perceptions of how a business is performing in terms of climate change issues.
Interesting to note that BP manages second place.
Me again: Meanwhile..... M&S, Sainsbury's and Waitrose top green supermarkets study
Road pricing plans to disappear?
Well, if this from today's Telegraph turns out to be correct, it rather seems that Ol' Golden is dropping yet another of Uncle Tone's flagship policies like a hot potato.
Mind you, any in government who chose to totally ignore the views of >1.8 million people would have to be rather thick-skinned, to say the least.
Mind you, any in government who chose to totally ignore the views of >1.8 million people would have to be rather thick-skinned, to say the least.
When the back story does matter
Recent events in the world of climate optimism/pessimism have made an already volatile situation rather toxic.
As one who is immersed in it all more than most, and indeed more than might be wise for mental health, I personally feel few on either 'side' comes out of this well, but two posts from Real Climate today do give pause for thought on the processes at work that shape one's views.
First up, there's The “Have you stopped beating your wife yet (yes/no)” questionnaire
I have a definite interest in who is stirring the pot, so this kind of manipulation with a view to the next headline sets up alarm bells. How often does one get the back story in some media more keen on what makes a nifty headline?
I also note that these guys are pretty set on MMGW as a given and I need to respect that, but I have to say the discussion around the Qu2 was almost as convoluted as the question was/is loaded. Sadly I came away still feeling that there are two sets of agendas essentially driving to 'proving' two sets of start points. One could argue it doesn't matter who or what or what balance is causing CC, but in light of the obvious interest groups that exist and how they will pounce on weaknesses in the other 'sides' argument, I still maintain it's best to stick with what cannot be faulted and work away with that. I can live with Man worsened climate change as still a highly motivational rally to STOP MAKING THINGS WORSE.
Next, there's Convenient Untruths
Now this is still highly topical and worthy of analysis, and if nothing else seems to indicate that we, the consumer (and, I guess, blog posters), need to make note of the importance of "quote marks" or, possibly (with my Dell keyboard not working 100% with my Mac), 'quote marks', which can seem to turn meanings through 180, 270 or indeed 360 degrees of interpretation.
I'm sorry, but there is something seriously astray in our communications if it has come to this!
But hey ho, to get to the 'truth', er, "truth" it seems one must acquire the skill sets to read between lines and now above and below them too. And this in matters of law!
Assuming it to be true (and I can't imagine these guys, with their dedication to the professionalism of science would not be), this brought me up short: '...the judge's characterisation of the 9 points is substantially flawed. He appears to have put words in Gore's mouth that would indeed have been wrong had they been said (but they weren't)'. But then I am a tad confused by the word 'appears' in there, which puts us straight back into areas of 'well what is it?' again.
The 9 points are worth viewing, and indeed reviewing as they invite additions, though I still question whether all this still suggests a bit of a bodge job and patch up to bring something to our kids which really didn't seem worth it for the result. At least in light of all the negatives that it attracted. And only an adult scientist with a very rosy view of education could be happy that all this would now be discussed to any degree of satisfaction in a school room. In fact, from chatting with my kids, who get most of their 'news' from snippets on TV or headlines in the newsagents, more of the talk would need to be explaining why AIT is not some daffy treehugger fiction, which it assuredly is not. However, the point is well made by a poster that at least it has all created enough 'awareness' (that word again) to keep the thing top of mind.
However, as seen here, many of the negatives thrown up are possibly the construct of those with an interest (gawd knows what) in suppressing any notion of MMCC, or the preferred semantic distinction (we all have them) that I still adhere to (if only to allow some wiggle room should nature be shown to be having a significant influence no matter what 'we' do) of Man-worsened climate change. It's just such a pity that there is still no objective source I feel I can rely on to give me what I need to arrive at anything like a valid view on it all yet.
But the fact remains that 'we' need to use less and make more of what we have. I just hope those simple facts don't get lost in the wash.... um... spin cycle.
As one who is immersed in it all more than most, and indeed more than might be wise for mental health, I personally feel few on either 'side' comes out of this well, but two posts from Real Climate today do give pause for thought on the processes at work that shape one's views.
First up, there's The “Have you stopped beating your wife yet (yes/no)” questionnaire
I have a definite interest in who is stirring the pot, so this kind of manipulation with a view to the next headline sets up alarm bells. How often does one get the back story in some media more keen on what makes a nifty headline?
I also note that these guys are pretty set on MMGW as a given and I need to respect that, but I have to say the discussion around the Qu2 was almost as convoluted as the question was/is loaded. Sadly I came away still feeling that there are two sets of agendas essentially driving to 'proving' two sets of start points. One could argue it doesn't matter who or what or what balance is causing CC, but in light of the obvious interest groups that exist and how they will pounce on weaknesses in the other 'sides' argument, I still maintain it's best to stick with what cannot be faulted and work away with that. I can live with Man worsened climate change as still a highly motivational rally to STOP MAKING THINGS WORSE.
Next, there's Convenient Untruths
Now this is still highly topical and worthy of analysis, and if nothing else seems to indicate that we, the consumer (and, I guess, blog posters), need to make note of the importance of "quote marks" or, possibly (with my Dell keyboard not working 100% with my Mac), 'quote marks', which can seem to turn meanings through 180, 270 or indeed 360 degrees of interpretation.
I'm sorry, but there is something seriously astray in our communications if it has come to this!
But hey ho, to get to the 'truth', er, "truth" it seems one must acquire the skill sets to read between lines and now above and below them too. And this in matters of law!
Assuming it to be true (and I can't imagine these guys, with their dedication to the professionalism of science would not be), this brought me up short: '...the judge's characterisation of the 9 points is substantially flawed. He appears to have put words in Gore's mouth that would indeed have been wrong had they been said (but they weren't)'. But then I am a tad confused by the word 'appears' in there, which puts us straight back into areas of 'well what is it?' again.
The 9 points are worth viewing, and indeed reviewing as they invite additions, though I still question whether all this still suggests a bit of a bodge job and patch up to bring something to our kids which really didn't seem worth it for the result. At least in light of all the negatives that it attracted. And only an adult scientist with a very rosy view of education could be happy that all this would now be discussed to any degree of satisfaction in a school room. In fact, from chatting with my kids, who get most of their 'news' from snippets on TV or headlines in the newsagents, more of the talk would need to be explaining why AIT is not some daffy treehugger fiction, which it assuredly is not. However, the point is well made by a poster that at least it has all created enough 'awareness' (that word again) to keep the thing top of mind.
However, as seen here, many of the negatives thrown up are possibly the construct of those with an interest (gawd knows what) in suppressing any notion of MMCC, or the preferred semantic distinction (we all have them) that I still adhere to (if only to allow some wiggle room should nature be shown to be having a significant influence no matter what 'we' do) of Man-worsened climate change. It's just such a pity that there is still no objective source I feel I can rely on to give me what I need to arrive at anything like a valid view on it all yet.
But the fact remains that 'we' need to use less and make more of what we have. I just hope those simple facts don't get lost in the wash.... um... spin cycle.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Who is the most important person in the world?
Your audience. Never forget it. Change the message to save the planet
He hasn't. They are the guys who pay to read him. However...
I agree.
And I disagree.
The way things get said is important. And to whom you are saying it is critical.
To business I long ago learned to avoid any hint of saving the planet up front. I wouldn't even get in the door. So it's all about 'ways to boost CSR and even PR, and often sales...' first, but I do still add at the end with a '...plus, who knows, we might get to save the planet, too.'. Makes me feel better and sets them on notice that that is what I really care about.
Equally with consumers, from the most self-absorbed Yuppie singleton to the most harassed Yummie eco-mummie to the most eager-beaver kiddie-winky, I pitch what I do as ways to 'Save time, save money and, who knows, maybe even the planet, too'.
Seems to work, still.
Maybe not with Guardian Online readers though. But I guess they might not be my audience. Or that significant in the great totality of the general public who it is still necessary to inspire to make differences... for the future of the planet.
He hasn't. They are the guys who pay to read him. However...
I agree.
And I disagree.
The way things get said is important. And to whom you are saying it is critical.
To business I long ago learned to avoid any hint of saving the planet up front. I wouldn't even get in the door. So it's all about 'ways to boost CSR and even PR, and often sales...' first, but I do still add at the end with a '...plus, who knows, we might get to save the planet, too.'. Makes me feel better and sets them on notice that that is what I really care about.
Equally with consumers, from the most self-absorbed Yuppie singleton to the most harassed Yummie eco-mummie to the most eager-beaver kiddie-winky, I pitch what I do as ways to 'Save time, save money and, who knows, maybe even the planet, too'.
Seems to work, still.
Maybe not with Guardian Online readers though. But I guess they might not be my audience. Or that significant in the great totality of the general public who it is still necessary to inspire to make differences... for the future of the planet.
I've been moderated!
Well, at least I have one less excuse to make my RSI worse!
A while ago I took issue with the Biased BBC website removing all of a comment of mine bar the initial line. This was odd, as they usually either leave in and critique, just moderate out or simply delete. Leaving it hanging with some text remaining out of context seemed an odd and unfair thing to do and I took issue with it.
In the same way I take the BBC to task because I think they can and should do better, so I was disappointed that what seemed a good, if poorly named, site interested in media balance seemed to have its own agenda, too. And reading their final word on the matter, happy to admit it too.
They say not. I feel different. A passing of the ways, then. Let's see what happens when they get bigger and more mainstream (which they will if the BBC keeps on its rather defensive course), and then find their own foundations start to crumble beneath them.
Hubris. To be watched for and avoided if you can.
Just to do to them (though it's in full on the link, slap down to me inc.) what they did to me, here are a few choice comments:
'We get far more comments on global warming than we want, and we
delete a lot of them.'
Well that's one way to balance. If they are not following moderation rules, fine. If they are just not wanted, then why allow debates based on what the BBC inspires. It's simply too selective to be credible.
"We do leave some comments on GW in, but only the better, more relevant and more concise ones."
Ok, so I can often not be 'concise' (but look at some of their magnum opi - seems that while they can publish chapter and verse, to engage you need to be pithy, or risk censure. But once 'they' (it seems to swing from 'we' to 'I' a lot) get into 'better' and 'relevance', then agenda is in play.
'You gave us a good excuse to delete yours '
Well, they are honest. Nice to find they were looking for an excuse. The facts were, of course, irrelevant.
"If you want to discuss GW in-depth online, then I suggest you go to a dedicated site."
And if I want to discuss the accuracy, or not, of the media, I will do so on a site that doesn't say one thing and self-evidently practice another. Guardian CiF is more honest, if an effort due to the majority of those who haunt it.
ADDENDUM:
Not about climate, but what 'they' deem on message:
Yet another HYS debacle.
A discussion gets closed with 2% rejected, around a third published and near two thirds unpublished.
We all know that this majority unpublished have in fact been rejected 'by the back door'.
Its not one discussion, its time and time again.
If it were sale of goods the BBC would be liable to action for misrepresntation.
Is there no way to make them change the name to reflect the level of accepted contribution and make them call it "DON'T Have Your Say", at least that would be more honest.
ADDENDUM 2
Seems BBBC isn't so chilled when edits/moderation/technical issues happen to their 'right' to be heard.
I do note it is about the very issue that got me booted off their site, climate change. By way of some balance I am go-smacked by this from a BBC Enviro correspondent, David Gregory:
'There is some discussion about carbon offset for flights taken by the BBC. But as I understand it at the moment it isn't something we are going to spend lisence fees on.
David Gregory (BBC) | 17.11.07 - 7:18 pm | #'
Talk about missing the point!
A while ago I took issue with the Biased BBC website removing all of a comment of mine bar the initial line. This was odd, as they usually either leave in and critique, just moderate out or simply delete. Leaving it hanging with some text remaining out of context seemed an odd and unfair thing to do and I took issue with it.
In the same way I take the BBC to task because I think they can and should do better, so I was disappointed that what seemed a good, if poorly named, site interested in media balance seemed to have its own agenda, too. And reading their final word on the matter, happy to admit it too.
They say not. I feel different. A passing of the ways, then. Let's see what happens when they get bigger and more mainstream (which they will if the BBC keeps on its rather defensive course), and then find their own foundations start to crumble beneath them.
Hubris. To be watched for and avoided if you can.
Just to do to them (though it's in full on the link, slap down to me inc.) what they did to me, here are a few choice comments:
'We get far more comments on global warming than we want, and we
delete a lot of them.'
Well that's one way to balance. If they are not following moderation rules, fine. If they are just not wanted, then why allow debates based on what the BBC inspires. It's simply too selective to be credible.
"We do leave some comments on GW in, but only the better, more relevant and more concise ones."
Ok, so I can often not be 'concise' (but look at some of their magnum opi - seems that while they can publish chapter and verse, to engage you need to be pithy, or risk censure. But once 'they' (it seems to swing from 'we' to 'I' a lot) get into 'better' and 'relevance', then agenda is in play.
'You gave us a good excuse to delete yours '
Well, they are honest. Nice to find they were looking for an excuse. The facts were, of course, irrelevant.
"If you want to discuss GW in-depth online, then I suggest you go to a dedicated site."
And if I want to discuss the accuracy, or not, of the media, I will do so on a site that doesn't say one thing and self-evidently practice another. Guardian CiF is more honest, if an effort due to the majority of those who haunt it.
ADDENDUM:
Not about climate, but what 'they' deem on message:
Yet another HYS debacle.
A discussion gets closed with 2% rejected, around a third published and near two thirds unpublished.
We all know that this majority unpublished have in fact been rejected 'by the back door'.
Its not one discussion, its time and time again.
If it were sale of goods the BBC would be liable to action for misrepresntation.
Is there no way to make them change the name to reflect the level of accepted contribution and make them call it "DON'T Have Your Say", at least that would be more honest.
ADDENDUM 2
Seems BBBC isn't so chilled when edits/moderation/technical issues happen to their 'right' to be heard.
I do note it is about the very issue that got me booted off their site, climate change. By way of some balance I am go-smacked by this from a BBC Enviro correspondent, David Gregory:
'There is some discussion about carbon offset for flights taken by the BBC. But as I understand it at the moment it isn't something we are going to spend lisence fees on.
David Gregory (BBC) | 17.11.07 - 7:18 pm | #'
Talk about missing the point!
And which group are you in?
Just saw this in Marketing Week: Climate Group separates green substance from spin
Now I am sure I have heard of these guys, but there are now so many out there I can't be sure. I'll have to do a nosey. Until proevn otherwise, I always wonder a bit about motivations. Especially if, as a consumer, I will soon end up with a logo that's been paid for to show how much deeper green the guys who forked out are. A Climate Brand Index gets me twitchy from the off. And if the organisation already runs to an international campaign director of "Together", Lord knows who else is on the payroll.
Gaurdian - High street's climate message not getting through - I'm guessing we got the same press release
Now I am sure I have heard of these guys, but there are now so many out there I can't be sure. I'll have to do a nosey. Until proevn otherwise, I always wonder a bit about motivations. Especially if, as a consumer, I will soon end up with a logo that's been paid for to show how much deeper green the guys who forked out are. A Climate Brand Index gets me twitchy from the off. And if the organisation already runs to an international campaign director of "Together", Lord knows who else is on the payroll.
Gaurdian - High street's climate message not getting through - I'm guessing we got the same press release
Whoops, its World Blog Action Day
And I forgot.
"Some time ago I signed up to the Blog Action Day"
This guy reminded me: A FAD IS A FAD BUT IT CAN BE A GOOD FAD
As did I.
"The most interesting thing for me is not the environment per se, that's just a fad, but the way the web can get over 16,000 people to write about something."
I'll have to disagree a tad there. I only engaged because of the environment, and really hope it is not as you so definitively suggest... a fad.
However, what is interesting as we are discussing blogs and motivations and stuff, is that I had forgotten all about it until I clicked on my BR email and saw you blog flagging it highlighted.
And then I found out it was today! Ooops.
It's OK as I blog on matters green and mostly unpleasant (my site does the nice, fun stuff), so I am on brief, if by accident. In fact, just by cutting and pasting this across!
Of course green marketing is greener in delivery (or is it... all that need for PCs and servers and juice, etc just to read it), but effective? Hmnn. I needed a prod.
Green only passes as a fad if there is no substance, or indeed need to stay with it.
I would maintain there is. But then you need to be on board with a climate caution. For what it's worth mine is man-worsened climate change as a sort of 'best not to assume it isn't, because if it is then being proven wrong doesn't really seem so bard (unless you're a climate optimist, in which case being proven wrong means we're toast if your views have prevailed).
What I don't go for is scare stories, fines and the whole green tsunami things, where you get bombarded and have to go with it all.
So, as you raise it, how obesity got equated to climate change I have no idea. That seemed daft.
Good on Florian. I wish we in the UK could be more like him. Thing is, his government and businesses are helping him a lot more, both with systems and incentives and logistics and clear communications in complement.
Here we have quangos on bonuses if we recycle more, and almost no joined up e-systems at all when we do. Plus a bunch of dodgy pols trying to grab our vote depending on whether the Guardian or Daily Mail can scare up a frightening fact pro or con that day.
So yes, as one of those bloggers I hope it may be a start, but I have to go off and now wonder how I forgot all about it.
Ta for the heads up.
Treehugger - Blog Action Day Takes the Blogosphere by Storm - Not such a huge storm, really. It may just be me, and I blinked, but I can't think of hearing or seeing this anywhere else but these two places. Maybe the BBC and Gordon Brown, etc, had better things to do. Shame, as the numbers looked good.
Reuters - Thousands of bloggers unite in blitz of green tips
Kinda off topic, but on message, I do note this 'The U.N. climate panel said this year it was at least 90 percent likely that human activities, led by burning fossil fuels, were stoking warming that would lead to more heatwaves, droughts, floods and rising seas' That looks like a vote for MWCC to me!
Guardian - Bloggers share tips to go green - Including the originator, four posts. And oen said it had 'passed him by'. Hmmmn.
ADDENDUM - Nice note:
The Wrap Up
The very first Blog Action Day was an unprecedented success and
we've got the final wrap up where the site used to be at
http://blogactionday.org complete with statistics, sample posts,
details of the huge amount of press coverage we had all over
the world, quotes and more.
It's a must see. Please feel free to spread the word around as
it's great for people to really see what we achieved together.
******
Thanks
And if I could just say a huge thank you to every single one of
you, all 20,603 registered bloggers who took the plunge even if
it meant going off their regularly scheduled programming and
stood up to be counted.
Also thank you to everyone who helped out with the effort, in
particular Leo Babauta whose contacts, writing and enthusiasm
pushed the enterprise forward, my wife - Cyan Ta'eed who braved
the media and fronted up to interviews around the globe, John
Brougher who put together the superb video, Ryan Allen who
performed the elite coding to keep the site up despite barrages
of traffic and most importantly my Dad - Fuad Ta'eed who valiantly
looked through thousands of blogs to give the tick of approval,
every single day for two months.
So until next year when we get back together for
Blog Action Day 2008
And this from Blogger (Not us, sadly, but hey):
In honor of Blog Action Day, we wanted to highlight some of the many Blogger-powered blogs that are focused on the environment, climate change, and sustainability. Want to see more Blog Action Day participants from around the web? Find them on Blog Search.
- Cleantech Blog - Commentary on technologies, news, and issues relating to next generation energy and the environment.
- The Conscious Earth - Earth-centered news for the health of air, water, habitat and the fight against global warming.
- Earth Meanders - Earth essays placing environmental sustainability within the context of other contemporary issues.
- Environmental Action Blog - Current environmental issues and green energy news.
- The Future is Green - Thoughts on the coming of a society that is in balance with nature.
- The Green Skeptic - Devoted to challenging assumptions about how we live on the earth and protect our environment.
- Haute*Nature - Ecologically based creative ideas, art & green products for your children, home and lifestyle, blending style with sustainability.
- The Lazy Environmentalist - Sustainable living made easy.
- Lights Out America - A grassroots community group organizing nationwide energy savings events.
- The Nature Writers of Texas - The best nature writing from the newspaper, magazine, blog and book authors of the Lone Star State.
- Rachel Carson Centennial Book Club - Considering the legacy of Rachel Carson's literary and scientific contributions with a different book each month.
- Sustainablog - News, information and personal meanderings related to environmental and economic sustainability, green and sustainable business, and environmental politics.
- These Come From Trees - An experiment in environmentalism, viral marketing, and user interface design with the goal of reducing consumer waste paper.
Spinning yarns. Telling tales. Act II
PRE -ADDENDUM by Junkk Male - A view from Dilbert
Further to the previous post and discussion on Al Gore's film and the court case which attempted to prevent it from being shown in schools; this from The Guardian provides some interesting information.
I'll leave it for you the reader to draw your own conclusions.
This is the slant The Times took yesterday on some of the same information.
Addendum:
Good Lies / Bad Lies - A useful summary from the excellent Brendan O’Neill of Spiked.
‘A good lie will have travelled half way around the world while the truth is putting on her boots.’ (Mark Twain)
Addendum 2 (from Junkk Male) - Climate deniers to send film to British schools - Now, I could say I thought as much, but I won't. I'll just write it. The cause of rational debate is helped how again?
Response (from Dave):
AIT is shown in schools at the instruction of our own government's education department. An extreme right wing group is free to create and send in as much propaganda as it wishes. But it just won't get shown unless otherwise instructed at governmental level.
Addendum 3 (from Dave):
I always like to wait for the views of someone that I respect as a genuine scientist. This from MediaLens is the personal evaluation of Professor John Shepherd of the National Oceanography Centre, University of Southampton, regarding the recent stalking horse, sorry, court case, about showing AIT in schools.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)