Brussels Sprouts

Well, I’m back from sunny (make that grey and wet) Brussels, having attended ‘Caps & Closures 2007’.

It really is too early to answer the question I was asked more than once at the end: ‘Was it worth it?’

To put that in context, it was often preceded by another that I had posed to me at the beginning: ‘What are you doing here?’

My answer to both was/is the same: ‘I’ll let you know when the cheque clears’.

All it takes is one. But when I walked in, saw the format and the presentation slide document... I almost turned straight around to hit the bars (which are pretty good).

It’s hard to be all things to all people, and when you are at the annual conference of those on the planet whose life revolves around the bits that top bottles and jars, you pretty much know what to expect, but there were some unpleasant surprises.

First up, over the majority of the two days we were there to be talked at, and mainly by folk who had paid to give a 30 minute pitch to those who had paid to sit and listen to them. And I have to say that when I was on the nth ‘nozzle cleaning design’ I was glazing over a tad. Hence I was tasked with meeting and pitching to as many relevant folk as possible at the coffee break, lunch and post event.

I was also up against a bunch of guys who all knew each other, knew their topic backwards, thought of little else… and wore suits as opposed to shirts emblazoned with ‘Junkk.com – home of the award-winning eco-cap design, the RE:tie’, and carry laptops and not pink Vac:Sacs.

Still… nothing ventured…

Actually, I ended up jotting down a lot of useful stuff to help enhance my pitch for the concept once back and can get in a room with those who can make strategic decisions… and sign cheques. Because, sadly, there were few… very few… of such folk there.

That said I do believe there were several who, if not in such positions themselves, were at least in pretty close, if only round the water cooler. And, best yet, for a collection of rather literal, often jaded representatives of a $400Billion industry who get pitched to an awful lot by crackpot inventors, all went from impatient cynicism to highly complimentary approval in the space of my elevator pitch (usually on a sofa in the lobby – maybe I should have tried the lift, it would be more private!).

I guess it was summed up by the feedback from a representative of Coca-Cola (who, sadly, use no packs that have a closure that can evolve into a RE:tie) who said he’d seen a lot, and this was one the best innovations he’d seen. But then I was also cautioned about the nature of the indus... beast I am trying to influence. You don’t easily steer something that cranks out units in the billions daily, and once you apply the corporate system to the mix you are talking many years for even the best to work through to production.

So a lot ahead still, but a good set of seeds have been sown and, if I may be slightly optimistic, have already shown signs of germinating.

Methane from a very unexpected source

Here's another source of methane (one of the most potent of the greenhouse gases) that needs to be taken into account in any climate model. It seems that certain shrubs (woody) plants themselves actually produce methane by some, as yet, unexplained mechanism, as reported in RSC Chemistry World.

Fortunately it would appear that herbaceous plants don't emit methane, but upland wooded areas may well yet turn out to be a source of at least some of the naturally occurring methane in the earth's atmosphere.

Fickle weather

One of the dire warnings issued by climatologists was that the likelihood and frequency of really nasty hurricanes would increase as global warming took hold. But the 2007 weather has, of course, been totally fickle, and refused to play ball. As the USA's 2007 hurricane season draws to a close, the country has escaped almost entirely unscathed (whilst Mexico and Central America have taken the brunt of the major storms this season).

Anybody fancy a little wager that this first fact will be seized upon by the BOFDi brigade as more evidence that global warming is not taking place?

More windmills for Don Quixote to tilt at?

Spain is going to invest in a project to develop vast windfarms in order to reduce its dependence on natural gas and coal fired power stations. As reported in today's Telegraph.

"The Ministry of Industry plans to announce over the next few weeks its more detailed plans to erect tens of thousands of pylons.
This will require a further investment of about €45,000m in order to produce 107.845 MW of electricity by the year 2030. The ambitious scheme involves tripling wind power in order to reduce Spain's dependency on foreign suppliers of gas (North Africa) and to reduce pollution."

The overall plan is to produce up to 49% of energy requirements from renewables by 2030. My bet is that Spain will succeed while here in the UK we will still not even be at the 20% target set for 2020, even when we get to 2030.

Labour party donations

As ever, the inimitable genius that is Matt of the Daily Telegraph manages to sum up the whole sorry mess in a single amusing cartoon.

Coming on top of the cash for questions affair and more recently the missing HMRC data files, it looks as if this could create more than a few ripples.

Here's the Telegraph's take on the story.

The Guardian's take is worth a look too, as is this from The Times.

In fact, the more this story unfolds, it looks as if we may well see a few more heads rolling before long.

Addendum 29/11/07:
Hmmmm, looks like the plot is thickening already. See this from this mornings Guardian Unlimited. I find it extremely odd that the party's treasurer (who also just happens to be 'Harridan' Harman's husband; and of course, 'Harridan' herself did accept a donation via such a 'conduit' "in good faith") claims to know absolutely nothing about the use of 'conduits' for the acceptance of donations. On top of that they had one of the so called 'conduits' on Radio 5 this morning; a builder from the NE by the name of Ray Ruddock. What is very interesting is that the labour party donations record shows that he has paid in some £200,000 but he claimed he was only aware of handing over some £80,000 in donations.

Another interesting snippet via Guido Fawkes. This one is going to run and run!

Oh, check out Matt's cartoon today in the Telegraph too. Brilliant!

Whitehall could save millions on offices

There's that special word again, 'could'. Isn't it amazing how often it crops up in headlines?

However, in this case, as reported on epolitix.com, I suspect that they probably couldn't. Why? Because they would set up a special project, staffed by innumerable representatives of the government's best super-pensioned, unaccountable, jobs-worth, empty-suited and highly paid staff (not counting the super expensive consultants that they would undoubtedly call in for help). This little lot would almost certainly blow more in undertaking the project than it could ever save.

(Oh dear, I've just used the 'could' word myself; I must slap myself on the wrist.)

Not the first, and certainly not the last

Here's another in the long line of consumer adverts (19 so far this year) that has been found to have breached the ASA's environmental code as reported by the Guardian.

Boeing used figures that assumed that their new super jumbo (the 747-8 Intercontinental) was flying at 100% capacity, the UK rules state that CO2 emissions for aircraft should be calculated using the figure of a standard 79.7% capacity.

At the rate that adverts eulogising most businesses 'green' products are starting to appear, I reckon the ASA is going to become rather busy over the next couple of years.
______________________
There's also a nice little commentary by Leo Hickman on the same subject in yesterday's Guardian Blogs.

10 years to fix climate

That's the depressing heading of a UNDP report as interpreted by Reuters.

I'll leave it up to you, the reader, to draw your own conclusions.

Bali climate summit

We've all heard about the upcoming summit meeting on climate change in Bali. Now I reckoned there might be a few hundred pols and associated hangers on, plus several hundred media teams, but this from The Times reports on what seems to have become a major international circus.

"Calculations suggest flying the 15,000 politicians, civil servants, green campaigners and television crews into Indonesia will generate the equivalent of 100,000 tonnes of extra CO2. That is similar to the entire annual emissions of the African state of Chad." Strewth!!

"Indonesian officials say the final tally could reach 20,000 — and fear it could stretch the resort’s infrastructure to the limit." "The preparations are acquiring the feel of a huge party, with the Indonesian government seeing it as a chance to revive Bali as a tourist destination".

Sounds like it's going to be one hell of a party. I hope they don't forget just what it is that they are there to achieve.

Addendum: (28/11)
Some of them could have fun getting there if they're flying via the Indonesian capital of Jakarta, as this from Associated Press reports.

Addendum 2:
But the Bali bash seems to have stirred some action into the Indonesian government as indicated by this report from Pravda. The trouble is, if trees are disappearing at the rate of 300 soccer pitches worth per hour, planting another 79 million of them seems to be rather too little too late.

Too good not to share

Not much to do with the planet, but in light of recent events I thought this PR headline received last night explained a lot: :Children take over a Government Department for a day

Well, they can only improve on the current lot.

In case you're interested, it's called 'Take Over Day'.

Auto Trumpet Tooting #104

Hey, I feel I am allowed. It's nice to get a boost on a Friday.

It's Friday, I have a whole night ahead of me preparing for my trip to Brussels to try and flog the RE:tie next week (so please allow for a distinct paucity of postings - with luck oodles upon my return, if only on EuroStar's performance. I am already impressed that I had an email to prepare me for French strike eventualities had I being using TGV services in France).

Wish me luck!

Atmospheric CO2 at record levels

From Nasdaq News.

"The global average concentrations in the atmosphere of carbon dioxide, or CO2, and nitrous oxide, or N2O, were higher than ever in measurements coordinated by the World Meteorological Organization".

Levels in 2006 reached "381.2 parts per million, according to the agency. Nitrous oxide totaled 320.1 parts per billion, which is a quarter per cent higher than in 2005."

"There is 36.1% more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than there was in the late 18th century, primarily because of combustion of fossil fuels" and "it appears the upward trend will continue at least for the next few years."

They calculate that CO2 has now contributed some 91% of the warming effect on the biosphere over the last five years. That's the first time I've spotted an empirical measure of the contribution to warming that CO2 makes, and given the number of new fossil fuel power stations coming on stream each year, frankly, it rather scares the hell out of me.

Take a walk and charge up your mobile

I had always anticipated that someone would come up with these one day; after all, it works on a smaller scale with self winding watches; but it just seems to have taken far more years than I expected.

This from Tech.co.uk marks the arrival of the kinetic motion charged battery, though you probably won't see them available until 2010.

Climate of peers

The climate 'debate' rumbles on... and on.

Thanks to another site I was directed to two areas - one of discussion; one of 'information', I guess, that to me shows just where we are.... just with our national broadcaster.

The climate questionnaire - I really am not sure what to make of this. It is just 'there'. No explanation, or context. What if you keyed in 'climate' in the search and ended up here? Odd. But an interesting set of questions, some of which many within the BBC could ask of themselves. And without default answers in place.

Climate sceptics - I'd say between the original post and the replies you about have it all in a nutshell. Not an exchane I will be getting into a hurry, though.

It has one of my favourite quotes, which I did comment upon before when it was invoked in another piece (I think the Guardian):

'We must also be smarter in the way we interpret the often vociferous views expressed on climate in our vibrant inter-active space. While welcoming a diversity of voices, we must make sure that we do not conflate self-selecting audience responses with a broad audience opinion.'

On the whole the replies to this piece do not seem overly happy with the BBC's reporting and, interestingly, fewer than I expected got involved in 'tis/t'isn't' facts-fisking exchanges. It was more about the way things get reported, which is how the debate should be.

That said, I found a few things troubling. Sorry, but I do see a total presumption that a certain line is the only true one and places any critique as minority or from suspect motives. And that from the way it has been set up it is almost inevitable that those who many not agree with it in totality are therefore not 'us' but 'them'. That is unfair and dangerous.

I also note, with sad inevitability, that when one group do not like the free opinions of others being expressed, much less dominating, the default is to drum up the notion that there is an organised dark campaign at work. To an extent it may be possible that those with passion and/or money can afford and wish to influence such forums, but it was ever thus. And it's open to both sides, editorial/moderation polices permitting.

For a while I have found the terminology worrying often to the point of pejorative... and beyond. Too often I have seen an 'eco-fascist' for a person who thinks flying isn't such a great thing, or 'Big oil funded denier' for another who may not quite see how certain truths are not yet proven. In between are milder, but certainly pigeon-holing versions such as 'treehugger' or 'sceptic', but they are still there to label and mock.

I was wondering what I would call myself, as one who concedes man-worsened climate change as a distinct possibility and hence reason to act in any and all ways possible and practical, but without the dogmatic, absolutist and often censorious zeal of some who require total fealty to their mission - which, sadly, seems to be to prostrate oneself at the altar of man-made global warming and any half-considered knee-jerk that might come up to 'correct' it, first-class, via a conference in Bali and a nice EU subsidy. And the hell with enviROI.

I'm erring on being a 'Climate AQUA'. Always Questioning, Unremittingly Acting.

So sorry. Not the finest hour of our national broadcaster, at least in persuading this licence fee payer they are doing their job and/or are worth the money.

You say whitewash, I say greenwash

In fact, I reckon it is a complete and utter sham.

Peter mentioned this a little while ago, in his post Responsibility 'du jour'. But this, from the Las Vegas Sun on just how Land Rovers are being marketed across t'other side of the big pond makes for very interesting reading.

"A $60,000, eight-cylinder, 12 mile-per-gallon Land Rover as the car for the environmentally conscious might seem like an oxymoron." No! It IS an oxymoron! It doesn't matter how much bloody offsetting is done; it is still an inefficient, highly polluting, CO2 emitting gas guzzler!

"offset programs like the ones Land Rover and Volkswagen America are offering on their cars are a good way to reach environmental newbies". Sorry, but that's just utter humbug!

"Much of what we do in society is ... insanity" Ahhh, some sense in the article at last; I cannot disagree with that one iota!

Powered by pond scum?

We have briefly mentioned the potential of algae for the production of bio-fuels before. This from Business Week paints an eyebrow raising picture of just how much investment is going into this particular pond. (Well, it didn't sound right to say field!)

Interesting to note just who some of the players are too. A number of the major industrial boys are already significantly into the race.

Another failing government initiative?

The Carbon Trust was set up by the government some five years ago with a target remit to reduce UK carbon emissions some 4.4 million tons by 2010.

So far it doesn't seem to be doing too well, as reported by epolitix.com.

Oh well, it only received funding of £100 million last year. Perhaps it needs a funding increase?

ADDENDUM - Junkk Male

Sorry, I had to leap in on the page here. This is EXACTLY what I have been banging on about.

I don't dispute there is 'some' call for 'some' support of 'some' initiatives, but what the hell is the actual enviROI+ to the planet and our kids of such as this amount of money going to guys like these... and countless others... to blow on....what!????

Just think what could have been done with £100M in tangibles as opposed to endless pointless ads in the Sundays and every banner ad I can think of.

If I had run my media spend like this I'd have been busted to the mailroom!!!!

From the BBC to here, the word 'Trust' is fast becoming shorthand for anything you should do but..

Lovely Peter, meter maven

I am not a big fan of ratings, at least as usually rolled out by 'the man', but this shows 'promise': New scheme to rate green energy

For a start, this is a major, if not one-off decision (unlike sussing out every tin of beans' carbon footprint/airmiles/health/junkk, etc) and frankly it is a blooming zoo getting to grips with who does what at present. It needs standardising for any meaningful comparison to be made.

Of course, we do have to trust that the regulator has the practice of enviROI+ to heart as opposed to 'pushing' fond agendas.

An Englishman's acre...

This got me to wondering just what one would need to sustain one's family (of 4), acre-wise, when the revolution comes: Ask the experts: The rural consultant

'I was just wondering. Take the future 'situation we might face' to a rather stark conclusion, and what would a family of four need to be self-sustaining?

That is, once it has been ring-fenced and armed against marauding hordes who opted for the weekend break in the Maldives and latest X5 by way of lifestyle investments.'

Now there's a thought..

Lust, greed and envy - Councils should stop wasting money on green gimmicks and be practical

Bang on. Though, of course, recycling is a tad down the totem, 'Re:worthy-wise'. Reduction and, much more fun, reuse are higher. Oddly, though not if one is of a target-meeting, bonus-accruing, fine-avoiding, box-ticking bent, councils do like their recycling a lot. Which is why we see so much money spent assisting us in doing the right thing. I just can't help but wonder if all that money might not have been better spent on just helping lots of folk actually DO something tangible, as opposed to keep those 'rates' peppy.

Thing is, it's not always that simple to do the right thing if you are so minded. I tried, and look where it got me, just on the matter of plastic bags with, or maybe despite, local authority 'guidance'

Food waste disposal? Sorry, not sure on that one yet, either:

But I'm on the case, soon to be issued is the carbon comparison site comparison, er, site. Because you can never have enough awareness!