Opportunity knocks!

This weekend I am drafting proposals for my grant-assisted IP/marketing gurus in preparation for a bunch of stuff for RE:tie, including the Caps & Closures event in Brussels at the end of the month.

Time to start selling this puppy.

And I am currently stumped . I don't do proposals. At least not very well. My life was selling stuff with ads. So most of me, when staring at a bank sheet, wants to put something in a box with an 8-word or less headline.

Market opportunities and demographics are not really... 'me' Help!

However, a karmic symbol shone down upon me just now as I opened the fridge door, like a light from above (bear in mind this is the month my fortunes turn, though Dave as no time for fortune cookie predictions and pricked that bubble a whiel ago).

Last night the boys and I were walking back from Warhammer, and I remembered we needed milk. At that time the supers were counting their money and planning world dominating land grabs, so I popped into the local shop.

Now as it looked like the usual I paid it no mind. But on opening it... bingo. A tamper-proof security closure strip peeled away.

And if it can happen there... it can happen anwhere.

Thank you Barntonsham Farm! (link is down)

And look what googling that lead to:

Advertising on Milk Bottles
MILK VESSELS. (Rose Flower Head design) (Overprinted in Blue on to an embossed ex Co-op bottle) ..... BARTONSHAM FARM, HEREFORD. ...

Would sir like the food, or the famine and fuel special?

Every now and again you come across something that really depresses you. This is one such. A comprehensive article on the global pressures on basic food stuffs by the Guardian's environment editor John Vidal.

"Wheat has doubled in price, maize is nearly 50% higher than a year ago and rice is 20% more expensive"

"shortages of beef, chicken and milk in Venezuela and other countries as governments try to keep a lid on food price inflation".

"India, Yemen, Mexico, Burkina Faso and several other countries have had, or been close to, food riots in the last year"

"There are 854 million hungry people in the world and 4 million more join their ranks every year. We are facing the tightest food supplies in recent history. For the world's most vulnerable, food is simply being priced out of their reach."

"The food crisis is being compounded by growing populations, extreme weather and ecological stress, according to a number of recent reports. This week the UN Environment Programme said the planet's water, land, air, plants, animals and fish stocks were all in "inexorable decline"."

Now this is the consequence of multiple factors; climate, drought, weather patterns, over population, but the article firmly points the finger of significant blame at the rush to turn arable land over to the growth of crops for biofuels.

Much as I like the idea of biofuels, providing it can be proven that they are environmentally sound and carbon neutral, both of which some, of late, have been seriously questioned, I simply cannot understand that some can view fuel as more important than food. At the end of the day a human being can survive on a couple of sacks of maize, but will starve, even with a tank full of ethanol, if no food is available.

Maybe its time to start thinking about building the underground bunker again?

It's often how you tell it

Battling for recycling -

A long time ago I had a very good client. Respected him a lot. Once, in the course of a discussion I had cause to say 'you are misunderstanding me'. He replied: 'No, you just haven't be clear enough to make your case enough to persuade me'.

So this miffed me. Whether it was the sanctimony, the lack of acceptance of other views or the arrogance that having a major medium sounding board to spout from confers, but I was not a happy bunny. Or, maybe, it was just that, instead of trying harder to convince a tricky audience, she retreated to a comfort zone to wallow in a whinge with those who share her values. Not that it worked. You can't always blame those you bring your message to for not responding.

I wasn't at the debate, so I can only go on what you choose to share. A perk of those who control the medium. Noting also that debates can often serve an agenda by how the panel is structured. Who set this one up? Anyway kudos at least to the nay-sayer (though he sounds by your account a bit bonkers, which is another good technique in panel composition to help the cause), as a 3-to-one set-up on a chattering class 'issue' is worthy of a BBC 'debate'. Mind you, I could find little to empathise with in his stance. Though he is welcome not to believe in climate change (or at least man-made climate change, which IS different), because, as yet, neither am I. I am sold on the possibility of man-worsened climate change as reason enough to act now on reduction and saving wherever we can as sensible precautions, if handled sensibly. Hence saving anything, including water, can only be good.

So to the point that '... just because the logistics of recycling were currently flawed, this didn’t make the task pointless.' it rather depends, doesn't it, on what the point is?

I have little sympathy with any who can't see value in a bit of minor effort to save all sorts of [choose nouns here: money, planet, etc] but then also get a tad worried about some rallying cries to counter this from the 'anything green must be good and all naysayers are 'deniers'' brigade, especially in full flounce mode.

Quite a lot of recycling can be pointless if one views taking part in some initiatives in light if the imperative to reduce greenhouse emissions as a matter of priority. Because the interests of many protagonists involved are not often clear or explicable or as 'green' as they might be, from bonus-driven quango directors to supermarket-opening eco luvvies with a book deal, to London-centric, cherry-cause-picking journos (Prius - good, Air travel - bad, unless it's to review an eco-resort in the Rockies 'cos the snow is so poor in Verbier this year) to target-rewarded LAs and EU-fine-phobic ministers.

So I for one, get a bit offside when I see bazillions wasted on recycling initiatives and comms budgets that generate hardly any value that I can see in terms of enviROI+.

Maybe the - harrumphing like a rhinoceros (no agenda stereotype there) - enviro manager knew some things you didn't? Or choose/chose to avoid considering?

Or is it just much easier to be yet another yummie green goddess, go with the eco-flow and not on occasion challenge the vast eco-industry that exists, simply to make sure all the vast number of things that can and should be done are done for the right reasons, in the right way and with the aim of making things better for all of us, especially future generations?

Our local kerbside system is great, but still doesn't take plastic. And like all else collected if it did I'd want to know how the 2l volumes of 99% fresh air are disposed of to ensure it's to help my kids' futures and not just to tick a box before I started sanctimoniously doing down all who may be thinking about it more deeply.

Others may simply be confused or antagonised by ill-conceived, poorly-communicated schemes that are too often shown to be designed less for the reasons they thought and were on board with, and more as a bodge or patch job to make some quick money or dig a pol out of a landfill hole. We need coordinated systems that are proven to work and shared in a way that all see benefit because they GET benefit.

The odd thing here is that I may agree with what you say - of course well considered recycling is not a waste of anything - but by heavens I don't have to agree that the way you choose to say it... or that it is all right.

And in a democracy you might wonder why the audience in front of you seemed to be less than enthused with your (three of you) viewpoint. How did this group come to be in the room, and were they or were they not representative? (audience choices are another good way to set the tone as desired). Or maybe it was the way it was expressed? I am getting a little tired of being lectured by a self-appointed media elite whose lifestyles don't quite equate to the majority. Most of us don't get a VIP invite to the green room of the latest green love-in event, or the opportunity to pop off (as I recently read in another broadsheet column) on Eurostar (like, totally offset, yah) to commune for a week with their eco-guru in the South of France.

But at least you can go some way to correcting things to how they 'should' be, after the event, here in your piece. But I for one would have preferred to have been there to stand a chance of getting close to something approaching what happened... and the facts.

Taking the Pulse

I just stumbled across a thing in the Telegraph called Earth Pulse.

To early to say how good it is, but it looks useful and fun at least.

It does quite a lot, but you need to roll over things and click away to get them.

A neat addition to the info armoury I'd say.

G-Wiz! Electric car goes up in smoke

I rarely paste the headline/title piece I am commenting on for a variety of reasons, but here I am making a point.

Those who come to the Junkk.com website homepage will initially only see the Title and first line (above). And on that basis may, or may not, decide to learn more. So, what popped into your head when you saw this (prefaced by 'Carbon Neutral?'):

G-Wiz! Electric car goes up in smoke

To me it is a good example of how there is the chance of undue steering of public thought (maybe just in the cause of a nifty headline, but often one wonders. I too often hear the cry 'but it was explained in para 5' on Newswatch) by what happens between headline, subhead, copy and, often, links.

Because, though still literal, I have to say I thought it was something else at first, especially glancing at the first part of this opener sentence: 'The electric car's potential for saving the planet by reducing our dependence on oil and lowering carbon emissions has been dealt a blow with the news that a best-selling model may suddenly burst into flames."

That said, I do have a real problem with this: 'Its British retailer, GoinGreen, offsets the car's manufacture and use, allowing it to claim that the vehicle is completely "carbon neutral".'

Maybe it is being unfairly singled out by "a few petrolhead motoring journalists" (though safety issues are surely pertinent - how does a SMART stack up?), but I think its green cred was poorly served by a medium one might have thought to be more supportive.

Box clever... or not

Green gadgets and our expectations

Interesting.

I write this as my Mac Mini whirs away in a box the size of an airport novel. I had thought the reason was cooling, but I guess this and laptops give lie to such a misconception. And as with mobile phones, I at least have always thought small meant 'more sophisticated'. Maybe that is a notion to encourage more modest housings?

And as with all packaging, I often wonder why the maker would incur more cost unnecessarily. Now I know. Interesting there is a cut-off. What about a walk-in model... why not? Why is 40x50x20cm the limit?

In terms of changing attitudes one is in the arena of creating or reflecting consumer choice. I bought a Mini because it does the job and occupies the smallest footprint. By that I mean in area - Mac's are not that green. So.... how do we change my purchase decisions (and a lifetime with the O/S) on this basis? So which one of these manufacture/purchase/operation/disposal considerations is more important? Dilemma!

ps: There are some other, complementary, sites to Freecycle that can improve your options.

To stir, with love

Welcome aboard Air Ashcroft, the Tories' favourite airline (just make sure you offset)

And while others may do their weekly commute surrounded by fellow peons, I do note they also do it by air.

This is of course a cost/time issue, and fair enough for that for those aware of the purse of those they serve and time poor (though a lot can be done on a train that cannot on a plane). Like many of us.

I am just unsure who you need to be and when it's OK to choose you transport option on that basis, and when it is not.

Its enough to make you itch!

It looks as if ticks and fleas are making a big comeback in the UK, and the blame is being laid firmly at the door of climate change. See this from Environment Times.

Now why does simply reading about fleas and their ilk make you itch? I'm off for a good scratch!

Carbcon Diet

This time it's personal

Will carbon allowances for individuals - with credits and penalties - cut carbon emissions? A growing movement thinks so.

Meanwhile this personal movement of one is not so sure, or at least that it will be fair and effective.

However, I perk up when I hear of rewarding those who live a low-carbon lifestyle.

Then I learn of the vision's orginator, in part: David Miliband, the former environment secretary, now foreign secretary. He who ducked out of meeting the Saudi King rather than deal with the problems that might have created. Nice to know who's in charge when things get awkward.

Then I read on. What a load of...

I'm with Paul Monaghan, who seems to have more than 'doubts': "The mechanics would be a nightmare. Think how hard it has been to get a meaningful EU emissions trading scheme." And then some... it's back to my Kalahari bushman and Mekong fishwife.

And I think 'a recent spate of books on low-carbon living' attest less 'to the growing popular understanding of climate change', than a total public confusion, more than amply served by those trying to make a quick buck - There are now carbon coaches and green lifestyle advisers, low-carbon diets and carbon footprint websites - plus me, natch:)

Fair trade takes on a whole new meaning in Manchester

Not a bad piece, actually, though again I don't get how it works effectively other than as a liberal, western, affluent, feelgood game.

Gotta love this lot: Manchester Is My Planet (Mimp) who registered their personal carbon emissions at rsacarbonlimitedcities.com

CarbonLimited will be coming to a city near you to further develop the idea of a personal carbon trading scheme.

To get involved (hey, what's the worse that could happen?), visit rsacarbonlimited.org

Stop! Ready. Go?

I saw red trying to go green - a bit dated, but still relevant (like me?).

I was pretty sure that should at least be 'some renewable energy initiatives may not reduce carbon emissions', surely?

But no, you seem to be right. So one of the breeding population of calculators (were it that they were matched by an equal or greater number of useful sites to actually do anything in any sensible or fun way. In fact I think we may have arrived at a point where we need a site to calculate the best calculator site) is not actually helping in what one one think... hope... was the real aim of any such initiative?

Hypocrisy and destroyed trust in government advice... leading to the risk that people won't listen and act. There's a thing.

Here's something worth calculating: the amount spent on various government and quango inspired departments and communications programmes that have achieved diddly squat, even in the cause of the great god 'awareness' (peace be upon its awesome power to confer ticked boxes, targets and hence bonuses) that could have gone to actual, tangible things that might help reduce emissions now.

No smoke without sense

With about 20 loads of garden waste to take to the council site in my buggy, I would dearly love to have a crafty fire this weekend. But I won't.

However with stuff like this going out I am tempted: (DEFRA) Bonfire night smog warning

The combined effects of light winds and bonfire night celebrations may result in high levels of air pollution during the evenings this weekend in central and southern England, and elevated levels in South Wales.

There's a lot more about asthmatics staying indoors. Guys, really. Next we'll be told it causes global warming... well, I guess it does. But this smacks of not quite getting things across as clearly or directly as one might.

Just tell folk as it is. I no longer have bonfires, even after 5pm, becuase it is not good for the planet.

The company you keep, or who keeps you

I am looking forward to this. I get the ST anyway, so it's a bonus not to have to go out and buy it.

By way of reminder, I just had an email.

Thing is, the ad alongside was/is from BMW.

No real problem, there (well, maybe a teensie-weesnie one). Their 1 series is apparently better than a Prius. Not that this seemed to be the message. More about touring the globe, and going on a journey together. The example I saw was Hong Kong, with a night view of all the skyscrapers ablaze. Apparently, the light show went on all night.

Not sure, but that may also go a small way to '... explaining the damage we're doing'.

Just a thought.

Treehugger - (are they following me?) - How Green Can a Newspaper Afford to Be?

The difference between the views of on-line and paper readers is notable, with 81% of paper readers thinking the coverage on climate change was excellent but only 45% of the web readers agreeing. - Well, D'uh. Which medium is lower impact?

Not sure the Editor has quite nailed the justification, mind.

Dirty great big car and skiing holiday ads (while the snow lasts!) next to pieces about how awful it all is what 'we' are doing to the planet and how 'we' need to be more aware of 'our' impact' and 'we' need to act now, rather undercut the basic thrust of many pieces, though.

Or maybe there are different 'we's' around. The 'we' haves and the ''we' haven't yets, because it's not like, you know, practical, as such'?

LB, call Home Office

I just heard a Minster who has been convicted of making/taking a mobile phone call while driving described, by the BBC at least, as 'one of our brightest'.

Hmmn.

All this time since it was mad illegal and he a) doesn't seem to have appreciated the law's intent (he was on an important call about something, apparently. Well, that's different then. Just so long as he wasn't texting Gordon a ring tone) and b) has never heard of Bluetooth.

Nice to be governed by such special folk. At least they are not, yet, above the law. Just not so good at setting the best example in following it.

Standby, me?

Pull the plug on standby

I don't do pledges. But if it did, I suspect it would just one of many pointless ones I could make today.

But I also don't do standbys. Costs money. Silly to do do. Hurts planet.

All off, bar the Skybox, which still has a red light glowing. I guess I could unplug it at the mains, but that may hurt it and in any case it's a bit tricky to get at twice each night by being lost in the back there. Maybe these winners of all sorts of green awards can help me with that?

Or maybe the 'government confirmed plans' will... no really. All the others have worked out so well, right?

Those eco-gizmos do look promising, mind.

I wonder if there's one that will shut off the dishwasher (yeah, yeah... I've decided we gobble tons more juice and water manually so I've made that call) if the missus puts it on at night. I do it in the AM so I can kill it at cycle end and avoid the drying bit plus the guilt-making red dot that greets me in the morning.

One trick ponies

Teacher, leave those libs alone

I can cut most folk a bit of slack on typos, but must agree that to succeed pols must find more rounded conversations to have than solely on the environment.

It's what dogs the Greens, though to be fair they do get involved in heaps else. Trouble is, it's rarely much to get me any more on board (which I am) with the majority I hear them come out with on the environment. But it all gets a bit too anti/protesty, to be frank.

Thing is, beyond being pretty keen on saving the planet for my kids, I have to also educate them to a decent level, protect them from harm, etc... and hopefully not be the one dragging their later years into oblivion by still being around and broke because I am one of the few pensioners left not on a civil service pension.

But Mr. Huhne does get on Newsnight a lot when they need a greenie in a suit. Unfortunately. They don't seem to have much imagination either.

Good luck with the rest. All of you. Sounds just like the kind of coherent, committed, undivided party we need to make the future better. But, for now, I think I may just leave well alone.

Rubbish. Is as does

Sorting our rubbish

'I have long believed that paying for the rubbish we throw away is the right approach.'

And I agree. As one who throws very little out by making stuff out of what doesn't need to go in the bin/landfill, I'd really like to get rewarded by a rate reduction for doing so. Much as I'd like a water meter to see a reduction in my water rates for not flushing the loo just now.

Thing is, just as those two dots have not been connected by the populace, they have by the guys in charge. And they are old enough to recall the fun that was Poll Tax. I didn't have a problem with that 'pay by use' notion either. Quite a few did, though. And from interesting 'sides' of the current 'divide', I'll be bound.

T'other night I heard an honest pol speak. The Cabinet Member for the Environment for my county. We will not be getting bi-weekly collections. Why? Not any great eco-reason, but because his fellow councillors and he want to keep their jobs. I'm guessing chip and bin are not in the offing either, then.

Oh well. The rest of your piece is, of course, worthy of note.

'But we will need clear central policy, good communications and more enforcement to ensure they have the desired effect.' Ok. We're screwed.

What do I owe bio?

Adding fuel to the fire

Like you, I was on board early. What's not to like about anything with the prefix 'bio'? Well, there's biowarfare, I guess, but all the rest seems...seemed.. well spiffy.

I even had myself down for a SAAB when the Volvo (oops, I just read on in your piece) clapps out terminally. Just the small matter of the money. With luck I won't need (with all that word implies) a car by then!

Why does this all smack of yet another set of targets, which the box-tickers have pinned on our backs. Not to mention those less able to ask awkward questions.

Is this the most crucial question we face?

Sounds like one of those gadget brochure lines, doesn't it? 'Is this the best battery in the world?' Doesn't say it is, but grabs the attention and by implication does.

So: Most terrifying video you'll ever see?

I put finger to keyboard in dread of being accused of 'missing the point' or, worse, 'not getting on board with the program', but my concern is that this rather glosses over the actual facts and roles of human nature in the mix, especially in a global sense as a competitive entity. and in particular when it comes to conviction and motivation.

So much, in matters of our future, boils down to persuasion.

Now, does this really tackle the acceptance of man-worsened climate change and lead to ways to mitigate, reduce and reverse it in the global audience?

You can tell me it does. But... what if I shrug? Try and convince me otherwise. Thing is, and as often noted during my ad man dasy (now attempting a karmic correction for all the things I got folk to buy that they didn't really need and places they went to that they didn't need to), few messages come with the messenger attached, or with the time to 'explain' them.

Thing is, I agree with every thing he says.

However, is this messenger, and the message in this form, the best we can bring to bear?

Sorry. For me, no. I was sent this an age ago. I think it's already on my site. Why wouldn't I share it? I trusted the sender enough to know it had value.

But I have not watched it all the way through until now, thanks to you, and the cumulative weight your association accorded it (a devil's advocacy point in favour of the awareness value). I watched it of course the first time, but tuned out after sticking with a few minutes of honest, sincere, engaging... sorry, SOSO: same old, same old.

I have now watched it in full. A committed environmental campaigner. And a Guardian reader. On an eco-blog.

Yes, the word has been spread. But by how much? And to whom? More ammo for me to drag to my less convinced mates? I don't see this being the magic bullet I am looking for.

I'm more keen on actual THINGS to DO to make a DIFFERENCE. Awareness surely can no longer be the issue by this stage? Persuasion is. And effective methods to do so.

Telling folk there's a problem isn't very inspiring, especially if it's near terminal and there's no solution attached. We need to do much, much more to inspire people, to engage with solutions by making them attractive, rewarding, cool, neat...

I'd find a 9 minute thesis a tricky sell with my crowd, but for sure I'm going to sample a few choice bits of gold from in there to help me in my efforts to get across the notion that profligacy and waste don't really make much sense anyway, and just in case the doomsayers are right, maybe a erring on the side of caution ain't such a bad thing to at least go with by now.

Like you, I have a major concern that we could end up being rushed by such sincere, but (maybe necessarily) emotive pleas, into unnecessary measures to reduce C02 emissions across the globe, with various bad consequences, including possible negative enviROIs.

So when you ask 'Are there other videos out there we should know about?', in the spirit of this last notion may I direct you here.

It's not that terrifying I guess, but makes your last point... if one thinks about it.

Time now for me to practice more of what I preach and hurry up the dosh to move to more positive and proactive notions to get folk on board:)

Population - An analogy.

Newsnight

13.The population of the world has grown since the dawn of time and civilisation has been the beneficiary.

Just a thought, and accepting population and immigration are different, if related (no pun intended). Tonight I am going to the pub, and with eachfloz/cc that goes in the glass I am a beneficiary. However, as it approaches the finite volume that can be contained, there will be a mess unless the tap is slowed and, at some point, reduced to merely allow for evaporation.

Sink me! (redux)

A wee while ago there was a flurry that our natural CO2 sponges (Forest, oceans) were tapped out.

I didn't get around to it then, and just as well. This seems (with all due caveats) a better discussion than any daily paper could manage on it: 'Is the ocean carbon sink sinking?'

Indy - Forests losing the ability to absorb man-made carbon