This is a rant.
It has to be because I rather fear that what I am ranting about has no possible solution, which simply makes appreciating it simply frustrating.
It has been kicked off by a small straw; a story I just read about our kids being unprepared for life's slings and arrows by everything at school being changed to only allow positives, with no allowance for competition or failure.
Some dipsy headteacher was quoted wittering on about self esteem, when the piece I read made the fair point that being told aged 8 that you are super in all things is a) unlikely to encourage good behaviour at home or out and about, and c) be poor training for when it turns out later that, in all likelihood, they are not. Bummer.
Of course where the real kicker comes is dealing with it all. Not just in the example above but across the whole governance firmament. Short of presiding over institutional murder (through target-obsessed incompetence) of innocents, lower tier individuals paid via the public purse are never going to be moved from their jobs. And if the are, and certainly if senior, they will either be moved sideways to carry on their 'skill sets' elsewhere, or get paid so much that they never need to work again. Or become consultants.
So maybe it has, at least for some, become self-fulfilling. You are super at aged 8 and then isolated from thinking otherwise by any sense of reality or critique through to adulthood and, if you stay in the cocoon of state employment, kept that way on up to early, cosy, index-linked golden pensionhood. The impact on those your efforts get directed at is... irrelevant, as there is no accountability or responsibility, at least on a personal basis (lazy managers will just pay up - using public funds - to cover up) any more.
But as I cannot see even the most effective, public-supported political party undoing all these drip-drip, society-eroding bonkers laws and the extra several hundred thousand civil servants taken on to 'cope' (keeps 'em off the dole figures, I guess. Trouble is they also often feel the need to meddle) with them, I am afraid this must stay a rant.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Its a different 20%
ADDENDUM - Junkk Male - Dilbert, as always, nails it. Though actually, it is my experience that the most talentless numpties I have ever come across almost always tell you as soon as you meet them how 'they can't stop/help/do anything' because they are so stretched for time. Like the rest of us are not.Well I'm gob-smacked. Further to our previous posts on this very subject (see More Spin), that's the response to a direct question about the 20% from renewables by 2020 according to DowningStreetSays.
That had me rolling around on the floor laughing for 15 minutes.
How do these people have the balls to come out with pathetic spin that's such ..... utter balls!
ADDENDUM - (Junkk Male) - Guardian - Or change 'em!
Watch-dog watched. Snared. And bitten!
Sir John Bourn, Auditor-General.
So who is he? He is currently the head of the government's national audit office, essentially the spending watch-dog, whose role is to ensure that the government doesn't waste taxpayer's money on pointless, ridiculous or frivolous projects. (Not done much of a job really, if you ask my opinion!)
Why the mention? Well, Sir John has today announced (just been on radio 2) that he will resign in January 2008. So what's he done? Well, according to this from The Times, over the last three years he has run up a few bob on his expenses account.
So what's wrong with a civil servant blowing a few bob?
Well, if you are a civil servant, then how about these as examples to try and emulate:-
"Sir John travelled first-class with his wife on 22 occasions, including to San Francisco, Bahamas, Brazil, Lisbon and Venice, costing £76,000."
"164 lunches and dinners since 2004, including meals at the Ritz, Savoy, Dorchester, Wiltons, Mirabelle and Bibendum. The bills, nearly all for two people, vary from £80 to £301."
Do we need to mention "appearing to accept hospitality from companies such as BAE which compromises the independent and professional standing essential to someone in this post."?
Probably not, but racking up a total of £336,000 in expenses on various globe-trotting trips has just got to be taking the p*ss, so to speak, for someone in the role of a spending watch-dog.
As one of the posted comments states - 'he'll probably come out of it all with a big fat pension', and 'completely immoral'. Quite!
£110k+ per year in expenses only - now that's nice work if you can get it!
So who is he? He is currently the head of the government's national audit office, essentially the spending watch-dog, whose role is to ensure that the government doesn't waste taxpayer's money on pointless, ridiculous or frivolous projects. (Not done much of a job really, if you ask my opinion!)
Why the mention? Well, Sir John has today announced (just been on radio 2) that he will resign in January 2008. So what's he done? Well, according to this from The Times, over the last three years he has run up a few bob on his expenses account.
So what's wrong with a civil servant blowing a few bob?
Well, if you are a civil servant, then how about these as examples to try and emulate:-
"Sir John travelled first-class with his wife on 22 occasions, including to San Francisco, Bahamas, Brazil, Lisbon and Venice, costing £76,000."
"164 lunches and dinners since 2004, including meals at the Ritz, Savoy, Dorchester, Wiltons, Mirabelle and Bibendum. The bills, nearly all for two people, vary from £80 to £301."
Do we need to mention "appearing to accept hospitality from companies such as BAE which compromises the independent and professional standing essential to someone in this post."?
Probably not, but racking up a total of £336,000 in expenses on various globe-trotting trips has just got to be taking the p*ss, so to speak, for someone in the role of a spending watch-dog.
As one of the posted comments states - 'he'll probably come out of it all with a big fat pension', and 'completely immoral'. Quite!
£110k+ per year in expenses only - now that's nice work if you can get it!
U-turns. Another way to spin in one place.
Why legislate when you can green market
Thank heavens I see this here as I was sure I had dreamt I heard it on a SKY News slot last night.
I can't seem to locate a dicky bird on the BBC or The Indy, etc.
Maybe they are still pondering the consequences.
I know I am.
Meantime, amen to this: 'They have little understanding of how to market green issues. Until they do, no matter how much they spend, their marketing attempts will be ignored. My advice is to save your money and bin your ads until you really get to grips with it."
It beggars the imagination how much has been blown already on such wasted efforts. And I have very dim views on the ethics of those being rewarded with bonuses based on us recycling more using our money to drive up the rates. It seems a slight conflict of interest to me, at least in the public sector.
As to the ActonCO2 site I agree and disagree. Or rather, t'other way round. It didn't work when I logged on, and most who tried I doubt will go back (web #101 - don't blow your budget sending all to a site that can't handle it). And anything that expects me to sit through that much web designer wet dream is asking for me to get bored and give up. And once there... I find out what my footprint may be? Woo-hoo. How much and how many people to and run this? And others?
My free reuse site junkk.com costs no one a bean in salaries and marketing expenses, and is currently 'run' by one. Yet it keeps winning awards by being fun and offering ideas and rewards for DOING.
Though some manpower help is desperately required and would be appreciated as I really need get back to the day job. Anyone?
Indy - Wasted opportunities
Thank heavens I see this here as I was sure I had dreamt I heard it on a SKY News slot last night.
I can't seem to locate a dicky bird on the BBC or The Indy, etc.
Maybe they are still pondering the consequences.
I know I am.
Meantime, amen to this: 'They have little understanding of how to market green issues. Until they do, no matter how much they spend, their marketing attempts will be ignored. My advice is to save your money and bin your ads until you really get to grips with it."
It beggars the imagination how much has been blown already on such wasted efforts. And I have very dim views on the ethics of those being rewarded with bonuses based on us recycling more using our money to drive up the rates. It seems a slight conflict of interest to me, at least in the public sector.
As to the ActonCO2 site I agree and disagree. Or rather, t'other way round. It didn't work when I logged on, and most who tried I doubt will go back (web #101 - don't blow your budget sending all to a site that can't handle it). And anything that expects me to sit through that much web designer wet dream is asking for me to get bored and give up. And once there... I find out what my footprint may be? Woo-hoo. How much and how many people to and run this? And others?
My free reuse site junkk.com costs no one a bean in salaries and marketing expenses, and is currently 'run' by one. Yet it keeps winning awards by being fun and offering ideas and rewards for DOING.
Though some manpower help is desperately required and would be appreciated as I really need get back to the day job. Anyone?
Indy - Wasted opportunities
Observe... er
Observer editor Roger Alton to step down
Seems a pity, if not a rather sad commentary on the state of our 'independent' media, that a person who seems such a good communicator should be leaving over ideological disputes with the brand's agendas.
Ho hum, I guess I'll just have to take what I read with the same amount of salt as most other 'news' media these days.
Seems a pity, if not a rather sad commentary on the state of our 'independent' media, that a person who seems such a good communicator should be leaving over ideological disputes with the brand's agendas.
Ho hum, I guess I'll just have to take what I read with the same amount of salt as most other 'news' media these days.
Where's there a yoof when you need one!
MySpace and HarperCollins to launch environmental awareness book
I'd say we need to get in there. thing is... can I work the teenie systems required?
MySpace is teaming up with HarperCollins to publish a book on the environment for teenagers. "MySpace/Our Planet: Change Is Possible" will be the first branded book from the online social network.
The book will provide facts, tips and practical suggestions for teens looking to become active promoters of environmental causes. It will be released in March next year in the lead-up to Earth Day on April 22.
MySpace users can submit ideas for the book at www.myspace.com/ourplanet and those who make it in will be credited by their MySpace username and location. Topics will include travel, entertainment, health and money.
The OurPlanet community on MySpace has 130,000 members and is part of the MySpace Impact Channel, which helps connect users to politicians, non-profit and civic organisations.
Guardian - HarperCollins launches ebook imprint
Times - Pop in and print off that rare novel
I'd say we need to get in there. thing is... can I work the teenie systems required?
MySpace is teaming up with HarperCollins to publish a book on the environment for teenagers. "MySpace/Our Planet: Change Is Possible" will be the first branded book from the online social network.
The book will provide facts, tips and practical suggestions for teens looking to become active promoters of environmental causes. It will be released in March next year in the lead-up to Earth Day on April 22.
MySpace users can submit ideas for the book at www.myspace.com/ourplanet and those who make it in will be credited by their MySpace username and location. Topics will include travel, entertainment, health and money.
The OurPlanet community on MySpace has 130,000 members and is part of the MySpace Impact Channel, which helps connect users to politicians, non-profit and civic organisations.
Guardian - HarperCollins launches ebook imprint
Times - Pop in and print off that rare novel
Nice work if you can get it.
No, really.
A wee while ago (and a half-jotted blog post that never happened and now may be too late), I met and chatted with Tim Smit, he of Eden Project.
An awesome speaker on stage, he is somewhat different mano a peon, so I don't think I'll ever be working for him. With, maybe, but even then there are two whopping egos to deal with. Plus his. And don't get me on prima donna traits as well!
Anyway, there are not many jobs I would dearly love to recommend to the right person with the necessary whatevers (especially as the last incumbent - or one from the series - was so darn snotty to me and mine when we tried a hook-up we got really put off the culture), but this is one, from Marketing Week:
Job title
Marketing & Communications Director for The Eden Project
Salary Range
£60000 - 70000 - in Cornwall! What coudl you spend the other 50k on!!!!
Job description
We don't do impossible.
If we did, we wouldn't have turned a former Cornish clay pit into what has been called the '8th wonder of the world'. Since we opened our doors in 2001, we have welcomed over 9 million visitors to our unique experience which is home to the largest conservatory in the world and the tallest rainforest in captivity. Run as an educational charitable trust, we are truly passionate about providing an entertaining day out - we are one of the most visited 'paid for' attractions in the UK - whilst altering people's perceptions about the world around them in a non-preachy, empathetic way.
Reporting into the Managing Director, you will have responsibility for creating and successfully implementing our marketing communications strategy and tactical plans. Whilst appreciating our strong ethical values and charitable status, you will need to ensure that all of our marketing communications allows us to meet our annual visitor targets. It's vitally important that we are continually evolving our offering taking our audience with us and you will be the force behind this. A crucial part of this role will be to provide leadership and inspiration to our team of passionate marketeers.
We need an exceptional individual to take on this unique challenge. The successful candidate will probably come from a leisure/travel, visitor destination, FMCG, Retail, TV or agency background, but experience is only part of the spec. Among your many personal attributes you will have stamina, assertiveness, mountains of self-confidence and be a grounded, easily approachable prima donna free person. You will be intellectually robust and combine your classical marketing experience with natural creativity. All of these characteristics will give you the credibility you will need to make this role a success.
What do you want to say to your grandchildren? I'm glad I did or I wish I had?
If you get the job via this, please think kindly of us:)
I am a tad concerned about what 'reporting into' him might involve. Which may be, on top of my ancientism, may be why my getting paid work is proving so tricky. Ho-hum. One of these adventures I'm on must surely pay big dividends soon!
A wee while ago (and a half-jotted blog post that never happened and now may be too late), I met and chatted with Tim Smit, he of Eden Project.
An awesome speaker on stage, he is somewhat different mano a peon, so I don't think I'll ever be working for him. With, maybe, but even then there are two whopping egos to deal with. Plus his. And don't get me on prima donna traits as well!
Anyway, there are not many jobs I would dearly love to recommend to the right person with the necessary whatevers (especially as the last incumbent - or one from the series - was so darn snotty to me and mine when we tried a hook-up we got really put off the culture), but this is one, from Marketing Week:
Job title
Marketing & Communications Director for The Eden Project
Salary Range
£60000 - 70000 - in Cornwall! What coudl you spend the other 50k on!!!!
Job description
We don't do impossible.
If we did, we wouldn't have turned a former Cornish clay pit into what has been called the '8th wonder of the world'. Since we opened our doors in 2001, we have welcomed over 9 million visitors to our unique experience which is home to the largest conservatory in the world and the tallest rainforest in captivity. Run as an educational charitable trust, we are truly passionate about providing an entertaining day out - we are one of the most visited 'paid for' attractions in the UK - whilst altering people's perceptions about the world around them in a non-preachy, empathetic way.
Reporting into the Managing Director, you will have responsibility for creating and successfully implementing our marketing communications strategy and tactical plans. Whilst appreciating our strong ethical values and charitable status, you will need to ensure that all of our marketing communications allows us to meet our annual visitor targets. It's vitally important that we are continually evolving our offering taking our audience with us and you will be the force behind this. A crucial part of this role will be to provide leadership and inspiration to our team of passionate marketeers.
We need an exceptional individual to take on this unique challenge. The successful candidate will probably come from a leisure/travel, visitor destination, FMCG, Retail, TV or agency background, but experience is only part of the spec. Among your many personal attributes you will have stamina, assertiveness, mountains of self-confidence and be a grounded, easily approachable prima donna free person. You will be intellectually robust and combine your classical marketing experience with natural creativity. All of these characteristics will give you the credibility you will need to make this role a success.
What do you want to say to your grandchildren? I'm glad I did or I wish I had?
If you get the job via this, please think kindly of us:)
I am a tad concerned about what 'reporting into' him might involve. Which may be, on top of my ancientism, may be why my getting paid work is proving so tricky. Ho-hum. One of these adventures I'm on must surely pay big dividends soon!
It ain't what you're trying to do. It's the way you're failing to do it.
I was going to bolt this to another post, but it deserves its own: Scientists say Kyoto protocol is 'outdated failure'
Now I am pretty sure those at either extreme of the the CC divide will spin this (if they refer to it at all - I pretty sure one will) in their usual ways.
But I simply note that it is the means, not the necessity, that is being critiqued.
And, frankly, not before time, with some heft.
We need to sweep away the chancers and the inept who have rushed in to seek green gold, and then discover and support those who can derive actual meaningful enviROIs for the planet from the horribly complex reality that is the global political sphere.
Indy - Sarkozy's green revolution in danger of producing nothing more than hot air - Good start:)
Indy - Is the Kyoto treaty an outdated failure based on the wrong premises? - The Charles Clarke option: 'keep me in charge as my fouling up is experienced fouling up'
Now I am pretty sure those at either extreme of the the CC divide will spin this (if they refer to it at all - I pretty sure one will) in their usual ways.
But I simply note that it is the means, not the necessity, that is being critiqued.
And, frankly, not before time, with some heft.
We need to sweep away the chancers and the inept who have rushed in to seek green gold, and then discover and support those who can derive actual meaningful enviROIs for the planet from the horribly complex reality that is the global political sphere.
Indy - Sarkozy's green revolution in danger of producing nothing more than hot air - Good start:)
Indy - Is the Kyoto treaty an outdated failure based on the wrong premises? - The Charles Clarke option: 'keep me in charge as my fouling up is experienced fouling up'
Going in circles
I report no more than the facts. and invite you to cock your own eyebrow.
On BBC News this morning it is gushed that a new venue has been added to the F1 calendar: my old tramping ground of Singapore.
However, as if running around in circles for hours powered by awesomely tuned internal combustion engines were not enough, it will be held at night.
Apparently, this will require lights that are four times greater in power than a footy stadium.
Maybe they will get in extra generators.
On BBC News this morning it is gushed that a new venue has been added to the F1 calendar: my old tramping ground of Singapore.
However, as if running around in circles for hours powered by awesomely tuned internal combustion engines were not enough, it will be held at night.
Apparently, this will require lights that are four times greater in power than a footy stadium.
Maybe they will get in extra generators.
What's a boy or girl to do?
I bang on a lot about doing here. And will continue to do so.
I have more faith in the benefits of substantive, positive creative activity than an awful lot else waaaaaay too much energy gets expended upon.
But every so often I give pause to ponder the consequences of 'doing'.
No so long ago I debated with myself at length how so much of the human condition that drives one to make stuff might indeed now be what's causing us the problems we are experiencing. There are simply so many of us making so much, the consequences of the processes are having a global effect... possibly.
Makes having a great idea... that needs manufacture... less of a thrill if you are cursed with the thought in the back of your mind that it might just add to the short-term problem. I certainly have a file full of such things. And a few might well feed the family a lot quicker than Junkk.com, I can tell you!
But actually, when it comes to 'doing', at least in this post, I am thinking of the people who don't do that much that's really very 'necessary' or 'useful', and what on earth society would do with them if they are no longer funded (via salaries, etc) to be kept occupied and in chauffeured Priuses or Bali conferences. Tricky.
The pages of government documents and the media and activist websites are full of things to ban. Some worthy of consideration; some vacuous, self-serving rants.
Trouble is, behind almost all is an entire infrastructure of folk who would be, quite simply, out of a job if these things did, in fact' cease to be'.
Take the leisure market. By some estimates, it represents 10% of the world's economy. No more flights would mean 600 million (well, a large % as 'we' returned to our roots. Though the thought of competing with 60M Brits for a campsite slot is not appealing) out of work. And they cannot all become Local government compost advisers or carbon traders.
Woah. Big, connected issues need big, coordinated thinking. Trouble is, I am not seeing any big thinkers on the horizon. At least, any who are not out for No. 1 first and only.
Indy - The ethical dilemma posed by organic food - QED
Guardian- Air-freight food must pass fair trade test to retain organic label in future
Sloppy Science Reporting Alert!
'Air freight by weight can generate 177 times more greenhouse gases than shipping'
What does that mean without any context?
ADDENDUM -
Meanwhile, where the big money is - Olympic consultants cost £1m a week - And they are doing...?
I have more faith in the benefits of substantive, positive creative activity than an awful lot else waaaaaay too much energy gets expended upon.
But every so often I give pause to ponder the consequences of 'doing'.
No so long ago I debated with myself at length how so much of the human condition that drives one to make stuff might indeed now be what's causing us the problems we are experiencing. There are simply so many of us making so much, the consequences of the processes are having a global effect... possibly.
Makes having a great idea... that needs manufacture... less of a thrill if you are cursed with the thought in the back of your mind that it might just add to the short-term problem. I certainly have a file full of such things. And a few might well feed the family a lot quicker than Junkk.com, I can tell you!
But actually, when it comes to 'doing', at least in this post, I am thinking of the people who don't do that much that's really very 'necessary' or 'useful', and what on earth society would do with them if they are no longer funded (via salaries, etc) to be kept occupied and in chauffeured Priuses or Bali conferences. Tricky.
The pages of government documents and the media and activist websites are full of things to ban. Some worthy of consideration; some vacuous, self-serving rants.
Trouble is, behind almost all is an entire infrastructure of folk who would be, quite simply, out of a job if these things did, in fact' cease to be'.
Take the leisure market. By some estimates, it represents 10% of the world's economy. No more flights would mean 600 million (well, a large % as 'we' returned to our roots. Though the thought of competing with 60M Brits for a campsite slot is not appealing) out of work. And they cannot all become Local government compost advisers or carbon traders.
Woah. Big, connected issues need big, coordinated thinking. Trouble is, I am not seeing any big thinkers on the horizon. At least, any who are not out for No. 1 first and only.
Indy - The ethical dilemma posed by organic food - QED
Guardian- Air-freight food must pass fair trade test to retain organic label in future
Sloppy Science Reporting Alert!
'Air freight by weight can generate 177 times more greenhouse gases than shipping'
What does that mean without any context?
ADDENDUM -
Meanwhile, where the big money is - Olympic consultants cost £1m a week - And they are doing...?
Knowing 'why' may be interesting...
... but in the case of shooting yourself in the foot nowhere near as useful as first not doing it.
Sadly I am on a self-imposed ban from commenting (though I'd get moderated anyway) on a site I still monitor for interesting facts and links. And I saw this:
We all know there’s global warming, it’s ‘why’ that needs an answer. Many scientists, based on research by the Danish Space Center, think it’s down to solar wind activity which reduce cloud cover and increase water vapourisation (clouds account for 95% of the Earth’s greenhouse effect). Just ask Al Gore why polar ice caps are melting on Mars and both Mars and Jupiter are warming up at the same rate as Earth or does he believe there are little green men on Mars belching out CO2.
Too many well paid research, media and political jobs depend on scare mongering findings. Politicians use CO2 as a means of extracting more taxes and the BBC obey their masters.
Here’s my take on the maths ....
CO2 (carbon dioxide) is 0.04% of the Earth’s atmosphere.
97% of all CO2 is natural and 3% of CO2 is man made.
Therefore man made CO2 accounts for 0.0012% of the Earth’s atmosphere.
The UK is responsible for 2% of the world’s man made CO2.
Therefore the UK’s contribution to the world’s man made CO2 emissions is 0.06%.
Therefore a 10% reduction in the UK CO2 emissions = 10% of 2% of 3% of 0.04%.
This equals 0.0000024% reduction in the world’s total emissions of greenhouse gasses.
Compelling stuff (well, Danish Space Centre vs. IPCC... hmnn). Note that the poster is on board with GW. But what I find interesting, and a little scary, is the absolutism of what I am sure is a decimal-perfect academic linear analysis.
No hint that 3% going to four may be a very bad thing in a sensitive system not in natural control (and I accept, thanks to my own eyebrow twitch, that it's hard to ignore that a Krakatoa or Mt. Pinatubo might further tilt the atmospheric nasties, but we're talking avoidable stuff here).
And speaking of avoidable, there's the age-old UK vs. the rest. The prisoner's dilemma.
I see such posts daily. And often they are fed by the latest rather extreme MMGW-pessimistic claims made by those quite high on the official/media tree I would dearly wish were more cautious, as they simply hand the optimists an easy distraction.
Take the forest fires in California. For start, if one accepts it's getting 'warmer' (is it?) a fire seems a fairly likely thing.
But interestingly all culpability claims that have pointed at 'Man' have indeed played the MMGW card. Why just that, when there is still so much to going on to discredit that notion alone!!!!!? What about all the other factors our expanding populations impose? Like sticking houses in front of fires where they used to burn away with no human contact? Or sucking the water out of every place possible to feed golf courses, etc.
There is a very complex thing at work here, and man most likely is not helping, but neither is simply pointing at the sky and shrieking global warming as you whip out your sustainability consultation fee document or recycling target estimates.
ADDENDUM - On the other hand - Science Daily - Massive California Fires Consistent With Climate Change, Experts Say - Experts, eh? One minute you have none, and the next minute a bunch come along and say all sorts of conflicting things.
BBC - Hurricanes and global warming - a link?
Sadly I am on a self-imposed ban from commenting (though I'd get moderated anyway) on a site I still monitor for interesting facts and links. And I saw this:
We all know there’s global warming, it’s ‘why’ that needs an answer. Many scientists, based on research by the Danish Space Center, think it’s down to solar wind activity which reduce cloud cover and increase water vapourisation (clouds account for 95% of the Earth’s greenhouse effect). Just ask Al Gore why polar ice caps are melting on Mars and both Mars and Jupiter are warming up at the same rate as Earth or does he believe there are little green men on Mars belching out CO2.
Too many well paid research, media and political jobs depend on scare mongering findings. Politicians use CO2 as a means of extracting more taxes and the BBC obey their masters.
Here’s my take on the maths ....
CO2 (carbon dioxide) is 0.04% of the Earth’s atmosphere.
97% of all CO2 is natural and 3% of CO2 is man made.
Therefore man made CO2 accounts for 0.0012% of the Earth’s atmosphere.
The UK is responsible for 2% of the world’s man made CO2.
Therefore the UK’s contribution to the world’s man made CO2 emissions is 0.06%.
Therefore a 10% reduction in the UK CO2 emissions = 10% of 2% of 3% of 0.04%.
This equals 0.0000024% reduction in the world’s total emissions of greenhouse gasses.
Compelling stuff (well, Danish Space Centre vs. IPCC... hmnn). Note that the poster is on board with GW. But what I find interesting, and a little scary, is the absolutism of what I am sure is a decimal-perfect academic linear analysis.
No hint that 3% going to four may be a very bad thing in a sensitive system not in natural control (and I accept, thanks to my own eyebrow twitch, that it's hard to ignore that a Krakatoa or Mt. Pinatubo might further tilt the atmospheric nasties, but we're talking avoidable stuff here).
And speaking of avoidable, there's the age-old UK vs. the rest. The prisoner's dilemma.
I see such posts daily. And often they are fed by the latest rather extreme MMGW-pessimistic claims made by those quite high on the official/media tree I would dearly wish were more cautious, as they simply hand the optimists an easy distraction.
Take the forest fires in California. For start, if one accepts it's getting 'warmer' (is it?) a fire seems a fairly likely thing.
But interestingly all culpability claims that have pointed at 'Man' have indeed played the MMGW card. Why just that, when there is still so much to going on to discredit that notion alone!!!!!? What about all the other factors our expanding populations impose? Like sticking houses in front of fires where they used to burn away with no human contact? Or sucking the water out of every place possible to feed golf courses, etc.
There is a very complex thing at work here, and man most likely is not helping, but neither is simply pointing at the sky and shrieking global warming as you whip out your sustainability consultation fee document or recycling target estimates.
ADDENDUM - On the other hand - Science Daily - Massive California Fires Consistent With Climate Change, Experts Say - Experts, eh? One minute you have none, and the next minute a bunch come along and say all sorts of conflicting things.
BBC - Hurricanes and global warming - a link?
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
More spin on renewables
After all the brouhaha of the last few days, leaked cabinet documents notwithstanding, Ol' Golden still manages to come out with this today at PM questions. (As reported on the 10 Downing Street site.)
"The UK was also in full support of an EU-wide aim of generating 20 percent of all energy through renewable sources by 2020"
But his own people have been telling us that it's impossible to achieve!
Even Shane Warne would be proud of the amount of spin this topic is getting.
ADDENDUM (from Junkk Male) : Tuesday, 23 October, 2007 Newsnight
Missed the show but the blog has proven... interesting.
I was getting a bit confused by the interchangeability of the Green Party and Greenpeace. Good to see the cutback money is now being invested wisely in Strictly Come Celebanything. I guess I should ignore all BBC output at odd times as suspect in future.
And nice to see that the IT 'system' treats even those who run it with the fruits of its duplicationist nature (10 & 12) at times, too.
Still can't quite figure out why the moderator can't deal with these, though.
ps: Barely worth trying to debate the state of this country's renewables record/policies. But if I hear the word 'target' one more time I think I may just have to pin one on the self-serving clowns who see setting, and then missing (or changing) them as serving the public or their trust with funding well.
How much is being p*ssed away in this box-ticking obsessed culture these days, where hype and spin are valued so much more than actually doing a darn thing that helps or works?
ADDENDUM 2 (me again) - A PR (wish they'd pop it on a site and give a URL) from the Greens. One thing I do note is no mention of Labour. Did they do nothing? Or is this just playing wedge driving between no-government parties?
Liberal-Tory proposal on car emissions scuppers efforts to combat climate change
Efforts to tackle climate change in Europe suffered a profound setback today as the European Parliament voted to accept a joint proposal by UK Tory and Liberal MEPs to allow cars to produce higher C02 emissions.
The report adopted today outlines ways in which emissions reductions from cars should be achieved and what limit values should be proposed.
The amendment to the report by UK Tory and Liberal proposed to set weaker emissions limits for carmakers and to postpone the introduction of these limit values by a further three years to 2015 (1). This is despite the increasing urgency with which these parties are calling for tougher environmental legislation.
Commenting on today's vote and the amendment, UK Green MEP Caroline Lucas said:
"The proposal by Liberal and Tory MEPs to allow carmakers to produce dirtier cars and to delay the introduction of urgently needed emissions limits has scuppered EU efforts to combat climate change. The amendment accepted by MEPs today reveals just how cheap the media-friendly 'green-speak' of the Liberals and Tories really is.
"An independent study, presented by the Greens/EFA group in the European Parliament last week, showed that only by introducing strict limit values for passenger cars as soon as possible will the sector be able to contribute sufficiently to enable the EU to meet an overall CO2 reduction target of 20% by 2020 (2). The study showed that an average CO2 emissions limit value of 120 g/km must be introduced by 2012 if cars are to contribute their share towards the EU's overall emissions reductions and that stricter limit values for 2020 will also be necessary.
“In order to meet the 30% reduction, which scientists say is absolutely vital if industrialised countries are to tackle climate change, significant measures not only to reduce vehicles emissions but also to reduce the amount of car travel are necessary.
"The EU must make these deep cuts in its CO2 emissions if it is to try and keep climate change in check. Letting the worst performing sectors off the hook, by allowing them to delay urgently needed emissions cuts, makes a mockery of the EU's climate strategy.
“The European Parliament has consistently called for strong measures to tackle climate change but by accepting the Tory-Liberal amendments to its report, it has ignored Green calls for more weighty action."
Editors notes:
(1) The European Parliament voted today, 24 October, on its report (Davies) on EU legislative measures to reduce CO2 emissions from cars. The EP Environment Committee voted in September for an average limit value of 120 g/km limit value to be set for CO2 emissions from new cars (by technical means which are influenced by driver behaviour). Liberal MEP Chris Davies and Conservative MEP Martin Callanan tabled an amendment for a limit value of 125 g/km and for the introduction to be delayed until 2015.
(2) The study gives a comparison of the actual CO2 reductions that would be achieved through the different emissions limit values currently under debate, which reveals that only with a 120 g/km limit for 2012 and a strong follow-up limit value in 2020, will the necessary emissions reductions from passenger cars be achieved. The EU will have to reduce its overall emissions by around 830 million tonnes if it is to meet its base target of a 20% reduction by 2020. Given passenger cars already account for around 12% of overall EU CO2 emissions, this means the sector will have to reduce its CO2 emissions by 80-100 million tonnes. The limit values which were proposed by the Liberals and Tories fall far short from delivering this reduction.
The study and political summary can be found at the following links:
Study
Political summary
Ah, here's the Labour bit: Leaked documents expose Labour's broken promises on climate change
Gaurdian - Surrendering our future
"The UK was also in full support of an EU-wide aim of generating 20 percent of all energy through renewable sources by 2020"
But his own people have been telling us that it's impossible to achieve!
Even Shane Warne would be proud of the amount of spin this topic is getting.
ADDENDUM (from Junkk Male) : Tuesday, 23 October, 2007 Newsnight
Missed the show but the blog has proven... interesting.
I was getting a bit confused by the interchangeability of the Green Party and Greenpeace. Good to see the cutback money is now being invested wisely in Strictly Come Celebanything. I guess I should ignore all BBC output at odd times as suspect in future.
And nice to see that the IT 'system' treats even those who run it with the fruits of its duplicationist nature (10 & 12) at times, too.
Still can't quite figure out why the moderator can't deal with these, though.
ps: Barely worth trying to debate the state of this country's renewables record/policies. But if I hear the word 'target' one more time I think I may just have to pin one on the self-serving clowns who see setting, and then missing (or changing) them as serving the public or their trust with funding well.
How much is being p*ssed away in this box-ticking obsessed culture these days, where hype and spin are valued so much more than actually doing a darn thing that helps or works?
ADDENDUM 2 (me again) - A PR (wish they'd pop it on a site and give a URL) from the Greens. One thing I do note is no mention of Labour. Did they do nothing? Or is this just playing wedge driving between no-government parties?
Liberal-Tory proposal on car emissions scuppers efforts to combat climate change
Efforts to tackle climate change in Europe suffered a profound setback today as the European Parliament voted to accept a joint proposal by UK Tory and Liberal MEPs to allow cars to produce higher C02 emissions.
The report adopted today outlines ways in which emissions reductions from cars should be achieved and what limit values should be proposed.
The amendment to the report by UK Tory and Liberal proposed to set weaker emissions limits for carmakers and to postpone the introduction of these limit values by a further three years to 2015 (1). This is despite the increasing urgency with which these parties are calling for tougher environmental legislation.
Commenting on today's vote and the amendment, UK Green MEP Caroline Lucas said:
"The proposal by Liberal and Tory MEPs to allow carmakers to produce dirtier cars and to delay the introduction of urgently needed emissions limits has scuppered EU efforts to combat climate change. The amendment accepted by MEPs today reveals just how cheap the media-friendly 'green-speak' of the Liberals and Tories really is.
"An independent study, presented by the Greens/EFA group in the European Parliament last week, showed that only by introducing strict limit values for passenger cars as soon as possible will the sector be able to contribute sufficiently to enable the EU to meet an overall CO2 reduction target of 20% by 2020 (2). The study showed that an average CO2 emissions limit value of 120 g/km must be introduced by 2012 if cars are to contribute their share towards the EU's overall emissions reductions and that stricter limit values for 2020 will also be necessary.
“In order to meet the 30% reduction, which scientists say is absolutely vital if industrialised countries are to tackle climate change, significant measures not only to reduce vehicles emissions but also to reduce the amount of car travel are necessary.
"The EU must make these deep cuts in its CO2 emissions if it is to try and keep climate change in check. Letting the worst performing sectors off the hook, by allowing them to delay urgently needed emissions cuts, makes a mockery of the EU's climate strategy.
“The European Parliament has consistently called for strong measures to tackle climate change but by accepting the Tory-Liberal amendments to its report, it has ignored Green calls for more weighty action."
Editors notes:
(1) The European Parliament voted today, 24 October, on its report (Davies) on EU legislative measures to reduce CO2 emissions from cars. The EP Environment Committee voted in September for an average limit value of 120 g/km limit value to be set for CO2 emissions from new cars (by technical means which are influenced by driver behaviour). Liberal MEP Chris Davies and Conservative MEP Martin Callanan tabled an amendment for a limit value of 125 g/km and for the introduction to be delayed until 2015.
(2) The study gives a comparison of the actual CO2 reductions that would be achieved through the different emissions limit values currently under debate, which reveals that only with a 120 g/km limit for 2012 and a strong follow-up limit value in 2020, will the necessary emissions reductions from passenger cars be achieved. The EU will have to reduce its overall emissions by around 830 million tonnes if it is to meet its base target of a 20% reduction by 2020. Given passenger cars already account for around 12% of overall EU CO2 emissions, this means the sector will have to reduce its CO2 emissions by 80-100 million tonnes. The limit values which were proposed by the Liberals and Tories fall far short from delivering this reduction.
The study and political summary can be found at the following links:
Study
Political summary
Ah, here's the Labour bit: Leaked documents expose Labour's broken promises on climate change
Gaurdian - Surrendering our future
And why not?
As one looking for a rather rare complement to myself to help further the Junkk/RE:tie causes, this caught my eye.It's a classified jobs ad from the Appointments section of the Sunday Times.
Interestingly, and perhaps problematically, it makes no mention of the product or indeed company/person behind it.
I guess that comes if the right candidate bites.
I have decided to write to the contact to simply ask that if they get a candidate who is good, but perhaps a tad cheaper (and hence beneath them) to send 'em my way.
Can't hurt, eh?
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Green? That's rich!
I read one paper a week hardcopy: The Sunday Times.
The reason is mainly one of habit. I just like to sit and read a paper, by hand, for a few hours, and I think it was a combo of the free TV listings and an IT supplement called Doors (now absorbed into the Lifestyle section) that got me on it. Of course, I still surf all the rest online. Though interestingly, during the week I get perhaps more via online with the Indy and Guardian, as these guys send me an email daily. The Telegraph used to, but it seems to have vanished. The Times, as far as I am aware, does not.
Anyway, there is no substitute to having it in your hands to get a 'feel' for the paper. And I suddenly realised how this one (and frankly all the others, no matter what 'ing' their hue) has moved beyond where I am as a reader and, one presumes, target for ad materials.
Just to sample two articles from two sections this week:
Private jet sales breaking barrier
How green is my mansion?
Now I'm all for aspirational stuff, but it really seems to me that, between editorial such as this, and the ads that complement (?) them, there is a huge disconnect between what we are being served up as 'normal' lifestyle and what most of us are dealing with.
Especially that latter piece. Fun though it is to touch such worlds, if only by flattering shallow egos, I think the so-called 'quality's' need to drag their minions out of the rear-ends of all those in high fiance and celebdom and start reflecting some more pragmatic issues that really do affect us 'all'.
PRwatch - Fake TV News: Widespread and Undisclosed
The reason is mainly one of habit. I just like to sit and read a paper, by hand, for a few hours, and I think it was a combo of the free TV listings and an IT supplement called Doors (now absorbed into the Lifestyle section) that got me on it. Of course, I still surf all the rest online. Though interestingly, during the week I get perhaps more via online with the Indy and Guardian, as these guys send me an email daily. The Telegraph used to, but it seems to have vanished. The Times, as far as I am aware, does not.
Anyway, there is no substitute to having it in your hands to get a 'feel' for the paper. And I suddenly realised how this one (and frankly all the others, no matter what 'ing' their hue) has moved beyond where I am as a reader and, one presumes, target for ad materials.
Just to sample two articles from two sections this week:
Private jet sales breaking barrier
How green is my mansion?
Now I'm all for aspirational stuff, but it really seems to me that, between editorial such as this, and the ads that complement (?) them, there is a huge disconnect between what we are being served up as 'normal' lifestyle and what most of us are dealing with.
Especially that latter piece. Fun though it is to touch such worlds, if only by flattering shallow egos, I think the so-called 'quality's' need to drag their minions out of the rear-ends of all those in high fiance and celebdom and start reflecting some more pragmatic issues that really do affect us 'all'.
PRwatch - Fake TV News: Widespread and Undisclosed
Peak oil - are we already there?
Peak Oil has been a much talked about event for quite a few years now, but this from The Guardian reports on the findings of Germany's Energy Watch Group, suggests that far from having many years to go before we get there, peak oil actually occurred in 2006. (Oh, and note the eye-catching and scaremongering headline, which talks of 'war and unrest', neither of which are mentioned again in the article.)
"The report, which predicts that production will now fall by 7% a year, comes after oil prices set new records almost every day last week, on Friday hitting more than $90 (£44) a barrel."
And I've noticed today that some futures for oil are trading around the $100+ mark.
"But the government prefers to sleep on without even doing a contingency study. For those of us who know that premature peak oil is a clear and present danger, it is impossible to understand such complacency."
There's nowt like burying your head in the sand; and this in the very week that our very own government is going to backtrack on its much vaunted renewables targets! (See Not Ready. Miss. Re-Aim below). So when big oil's pumps run dry, as they inevitably will, at least here in the UK we'll be able to fill up with alternative renewable fuels like bio-deisel and ethanol ....... NOT!!
Addendum:
More scary headlines ........ 'Peak Oil could trigger meltdown of society' is the headline that Renew, Reuse, Recycle comes up with for its interpretation of this same report.
ADDENDUM (from Junkk Male)
Guardian - It's rip-off Britain, even when it comes to climate change - I so envy such as Directors of orgnaisations who get paid well to say lots of things. Post by 'askingquestions' is well worth a read.
Gaurdian - Give ministers some credit for green measures
"The report, which predicts that production will now fall by 7% a year, comes after oil prices set new records almost every day last week, on Friday hitting more than $90 (£44) a barrel."
And I've noticed today that some futures for oil are trading around the $100+ mark.
"But the government prefers to sleep on without even doing a contingency study. For those of us who know that premature peak oil is a clear and present danger, it is impossible to understand such complacency."
There's nowt like burying your head in the sand; and this in the very week that our very own government is going to backtrack on its much vaunted renewables targets! (See Not Ready. Miss. Re-Aim below). So when big oil's pumps run dry, as they inevitably will, at least here in the UK we'll be able to fill up with alternative renewable fuels like bio-deisel and ethanol ....... NOT!!
Addendum:
More scary headlines ........ 'Peak Oil could trigger meltdown of society' is the headline that Renew, Reuse, Recycle comes up with for its interpretation of this same report.
ADDENDUM (from Junkk Male)
Guardian - It's rip-off Britain, even when it comes to climate change - I so envy such as Directors of orgnaisations who get paid well to say lots of things. Post by 'askingquestions' is well worth a read.
Gaurdian - Give ministers some credit for green measures
We don't need another hero
At least, and with all due deference to Tina Turner, if this is what is meant: Heroes of the environment
I actually got that from the Guardian, but lost the link. Maybe from the horse's orifice is better.
I was going to post on the CiF 'debate' but it was already below gutter level and seemed worth avoiding.
Suffice to say, I remain pretty sure my feelings about the right messengers for the message were enhanced by the fall out. What do these journalists and editors do to compile such things? Google a few green words and assume those who get the most mentions (in any context) must be doing the most?
And I say as a very reluctantly-named Green 'Hero' in a recent competition.
I actually got that from the Guardian, but lost the link. Maybe from the horse's orifice is better.
I was going to post on the CiF 'debate' but it was already below gutter level and seemed worth avoiding.
Suffice to say, I remain pretty sure my feelings about the right messengers for the message were enhanced by the fall out. What do these journalists and editors do to compile such things? Google a few green words and assume those who get the most mentions (in any context) must be doing the most?
And I say as a very reluctantly-named Green 'Hero' in a recent competition.
Why I love the internet (and blogs)
I clicked on this because it mentioned pop concerts not being the best way forward: Anita was a true activist
But I ended up appreciating it more for what blogs can throw up (if true and proven).
Check out post #5/Principe
Seems that BOFDIs are not the only one's who have, or fund, those who might push their interests for reasons other than those stated.
One man's activist is another's agenda pusher?
But I will try and stick with the argument and ignore who is making it. Nice one, Guardian.
But I ended up appreciating it more for what blogs can throw up (if true and proven).
Check out post #5/Principe
Seems that BOFDIs are not the only one's who have, or fund, those who might push their interests for reasons other than those stated.
One man's activist is another's agenda pusher?
But I will try and stick with the argument and ignore who is making it. Nice one, Guardian.
Not ready. Miss. Re-aim.
Labour's plan to abandon renewable energy targets
It's not MY fault that today has a bit of a target theme.
There are just so many of 'em you'd think someone could hit something.
But no.
Hence the next best thing seesm to be to remove them as anything worth going for in the first, or last, place.
Thing is, just how much has been consumed... wasted... in all the processes leading up them so far?
I think we should know. To see what else maybe we can do without.
It's not MY fault that today has a bit of a target theme.
There are just so many of 'em you'd think someone could hit something.
But no.
Hence the next best thing seesm to be to remove them as anything worth going for in the first, or last, place.
Thing is, just how much has been consumed... wasted... in all the processes leading up them so far?
I think we should know. To see what else maybe we can do without.
Making a monkey of surveys
Some online surveys I get seem to be powered by a thing called 'Survey Monkey'.
Never really thought about it until now, but considering the number we get, and the value most have, you could do worse to hire a troupe of chimps to write the questions, ask 'em, collate the answers, publish the results and then report on them.
The latter brings me to the fact that according to the BBC (I'm sure some online will clarify further later) the people of Winchester need to hang their heads in shame.
Yes, in the nth survey result of the week on matters eco, and the second just today, we learn that this fair town is single-handedly causing the world to burn.
There will be a fuss, and a flurry of stuff, and then the circus will move on. What possible use is all that?
Never really thought about it until now, but considering the number we get, and the value most have, you could do worse to hire a troupe of chimps to write the questions, ask 'em, collate the answers, publish the results and then report on them.
The latter brings me to the fact that according to the BBC (I'm sure some online will clarify further later) the people of Winchester need to hang their heads in shame.
Yes, in the nth survey result of the week on matters eco, and the second just today, we learn that this fair town is single-handedly causing the world to burn.
There will be a fuss, and a flurry of stuff, and then the circus will move on. What possible use is all that?
Targets, with the possibility of more targets soon
Just caught the tail end of a BBC News piece on excess packaging.
Don't know what kicked it off (will add later if any follow-up on or offline), but on the sofa was a guy from M&S and Lucy Siegel from the Observer.
He was rather copping it from her and the BBC sofa warriors, and I was wondering why. From the sound of it either a) they came bottom in 'a' survey (in which case one wonders which one, as they came top in the majority I read... ah, surveys) or b) the others didn't turn up. A few 'statements' were read out.
Other than being discomfiting for this gent, who was subject to a set of target and date demands, and agreeing that 'things need to improve', I am unsure where this piece moved us on to.
The key, certainly alluded to, is working together with those tasked to deal with the waste produced in manners such that the consumer knows what to do... and does it.
But representatives of such entities were noticeably absent. Leaving us with just another set of targets now that will be forgotten, and likely be unmet, as soon as the media turn their attention elsewhere.
ADDENDUM - That'll teach me to hang fire! it is actually a major feature. Seems that yet another survey (my fourth in a week), this time from the Local Government Association (LGA) has dumped on our major retailers for the packaging waste problem.
As to M&S, it seems they came bottom (which makes one wonder about the other surveys mentioned in these posts recently), which rather suggest that plans (even if they are 'A') are about as much cop as targets.
Actually I have no cause yet (until I read an online report in more detail) to change much else of what I wrote. I rather suspect this might stray into a bit of finger-pointing as the LAs and government (well silent so far) are not exactly innocent here.
Also, in terms of enviROI, I really hope that we won't see some knee-jerk actions away from what looks good or meets a target at the expense of common sense. I do wonder if there is more concern about what is not going into the appropriate bin and gets measured as opposed to what costs the planet. It seems disingenuous to equate what and how one buys from a street stall with the logistics of a supermarket. And a skip full of neatly sorted veg trays may be lovely to behold, but not if elsewhere there are ten full of rejected food waste.
Indy - National supermarkets criticised over failure to cut levels of packaging
Didn't take long! And yes, yet another survey. I just have to wonder... 'a market?'
This amplification doesn't change my views on reasons behind much of this, or indeed the lack of real solutions.
Indy - Customers could dump wrappers before leaving shop under new law
BBC - tried to find the story. Got as far as here. Failed as link didn't work.
One word: 'could'. Next words: Is this unfairly shunting the issue onto only one section when we need a proper, coordinated approach from all protagonists first?'
Guardian - M&S gets the lowest green rating in packaging survey - What price a £100kpa CSR guru now?
Guardian (podcast) - 'The cost is passed on to the council taxpayer' - Let the games begin.
I was on board pretty much until the end.
That came across a tad as 'Help 'us' meet targets or we'll drop the fines on 'you'.'
What if these targets are not that relevant in the overall enviROI+ scheme of things (I don't know, but would like to see how a trip to one supermarket compares in terms of 'footprint' to going to several places. Or how the consequences of packaging waste stack up vs. food waste as a consequence of rejected/disposed of foodstuffs).
When there are so many departments/quangos whose officers/directors are on bonuses based on simply getting rates up in their sectors, I am afraid my confidence is dented in the motives any comms effort, especially funded with our money, on ads and PR campaigns.
Our paying to fund the mechanism to drive up rates to improve such folks' bonuses strikes me as a conflict of interest at best.
And in a nation of 60B+ and soaring, most working 12 hrs a day just to stay on top of life's demands (and those of a growing public service in terms of salaries and pensions), I am not yet convinced just whose best interests are being served by some of these initiatives and the media efforts thrown behind them.
Don't know what kicked it off (will add later if any follow-up on or offline), but on the sofa was a guy from M&S and Lucy Siegel from the Observer.
He was rather copping it from her and the BBC sofa warriors, and I was wondering why. From the sound of it either a) they came bottom in 'a' survey (in which case one wonders which one, as they came top in the majority I read... ah, surveys) or b) the others didn't turn up. A few 'statements' were read out.
Other than being discomfiting for this gent, who was subject to a set of target and date demands, and agreeing that 'things need to improve', I am unsure where this piece moved us on to.
The key, certainly alluded to, is working together with those tasked to deal with the waste produced in manners such that the consumer knows what to do... and does it.
But representatives of such entities were noticeably absent. Leaving us with just another set of targets now that will be forgotten, and likely be unmet, as soon as the media turn their attention elsewhere.
ADDENDUM - That'll teach me to hang fire! it is actually a major feature. Seems that yet another survey (my fourth in a week), this time from the Local Government Association (LGA) has dumped on our major retailers for the packaging waste problem.
As to M&S, it seems they came bottom (which makes one wonder about the other surveys mentioned in these posts recently), which rather suggest that plans (even if they are 'A') are about as much cop as targets.
Actually I have no cause yet (until I read an online report in more detail) to change much else of what I wrote. I rather suspect this might stray into a bit of finger-pointing as the LAs and government (well silent so far) are not exactly innocent here.
Also, in terms of enviROI, I really hope that we won't see some knee-jerk actions away from what looks good or meets a target at the expense of common sense. I do wonder if there is more concern about what is not going into the appropriate bin and gets measured as opposed to what costs the planet. It seems disingenuous to equate what and how one buys from a street stall with the logistics of a supermarket. And a skip full of neatly sorted veg trays may be lovely to behold, but not if elsewhere there are ten full of rejected food waste.
Indy - National supermarkets criticised over failure to cut levels of packaging
Didn't take long! And yes, yet another survey. I just have to wonder... 'a market?'
This amplification doesn't change my views on reasons behind much of this, or indeed the lack of real solutions.
Indy - Customers could dump wrappers before leaving shop under new law
BBC - tried to find the story. Got as far as here. Failed as link didn't work.
One word: 'could'. Next words: Is this unfairly shunting the issue onto only one section when we need a proper, coordinated approach from all protagonists first?'
Guardian - M&S gets the lowest green rating in packaging survey - What price a £100kpa CSR guru now?
Guardian (podcast) - 'The cost is passed on to the council taxpayer' - Let the games begin.
I was on board pretty much until the end.
That came across a tad as 'Help 'us' meet targets or we'll drop the fines on 'you'.'
What if these targets are not that relevant in the overall enviROI+ scheme of things (I don't know, but would like to see how a trip to one supermarket compares in terms of 'footprint' to going to several places. Or how the consequences of packaging waste stack up vs. food waste as a consequence of rejected/disposed of foodstuffs).
When there are so many departments/quangos whose officers/directors are on bonuses based on simply getting rates up in their sectors, I am afraid my confidence is dented in the motives any comms effort, especially funded with our money, on ads and PR campaigns.
Our paying to fund the mechanism to drive up rates to improve such folks' bonuses strikes me as a conflict of interest at best.
And in a nation of 60B+ and soaring, most working 12 hrs a day just to stay on top of life's demands (and those of a growing public service in terms of salaries and pensions), I am not yet convinced just whose best interests are being served by some of these initiatives and the media efforts thrown behind them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)