As all will, well... should know, I have set up Junkk.com (and this associated blog) to not only do good, but make good, too.
As yet, while I think the first can warrant a tick, I'm still kinda working on the second. Getting there, but... a ways to go.
I think I blogged a short while ago about an educational foray back into the world of online media, and the help and insights I gained, though to date can't do much about becuase they need major dosh. Hence my scoping out the weird and wondeful laternate universe of VCs Business Angels.
But one thing has rung in my memory since, which is the advised target of 500k unique visitors to get taken serioulsy as an ad medium.
I think I can do it. I just have to focus on what will make the offering unique, attract an audience and keep them loyal... and telling others.
Which is all quite an ambition. Especially as, at the 'mo, there is one of me trying to do this.
So I was quite interested in this piece about an outfit called Shiny Media. All very inspirational, and a big up to them. Thing is, for their 3.5M unique visistors they have a staff of 20+! That's one person per 150,000, which is what I have managed. So, at the end of the day, it remains a numbers game.
No wonder it's taking me a while. I must get in touch.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
The world's larget rubbish dump
Reported in the Independent this morning, this is absolutely amazing!
"A 'plastic soup' of waste floating in the Pacific Ocean is growing at an alarming rate and now covers an area twice the size of the continental United States, scientists have said."
Known as the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch" or "trash vortex", it is estimated to contain some 100 million tons of flotsam!
"The vast expanse of debris – in effect the world's largest rubbish dump – is held in place by swirling underwater currents. This drifting 'soup' stretches from about 500 nautical miles off the Californian coast, across the northern Pacific, past Hawaii and almost as far as Japan."
"Plastic is believed to constitute 90 per cent of all rubbish floating in the oceans. The UN Environment Programme estimated in 2006 that every square mile of ocean contains 46,000 pieces of floating plastic."
And some people still insist that rubbish thrown out to sea doesn't constitute a problem!
Addendum (Junkk Male) - Well, someone seems to think there's an angle.
"A 'plastic soup' of waste floating in the Pacific Ocean is growing at an alarming rate and now covers an area twice the size of the continental United States, scientists have said."
Known as the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch" or "trash vortex", it is estimated to contain some 100 million tons of flotsam!
"The vast expanse of debris – in effect the world's largest rubbish dump – is held in place by swirling underwater currents. This drifting 'soup' stretches from about 500 nautical miles off the Californian coast, across the northern Pacific, past Hawaii and almost as far as Japan."
"Plastic is believed to constitute 90 per cent of all rubbish floating in the oceans. The UN Environment Programme estimated in 2006 that every square mile of ocean contains 46,000 pieces of floating plastic."
And some people still insist that rubbish thrown out to sea doesn't constitute a problem!
Addendum (Junkk Male) - Well, someone seems to think there's an angle.
Kite ship makes significant fuel savings
I saw a piece on the MS Beluga Skysail on TV a few weeks back and wondered just how much energy the giant kite might save in terms of fuel costs.
Well, Reuters are now reporting that the vessel saved some 15 to 20% of its daily fuel needs by deploying the giant kite, cutting fuel consumption by some 4 tonnes per day. Now that's not an insignificant saving. I wonder if they're thinking about fitting giant kites onto many more cargo vessels now. Strange how things go full circle - from Sail, to Steam, to Oil & Diesel, and back to Sail.
Well, Reuters are now reporting that the vessel saved some 15 to 20% of its daily fuel needs by deploying the giant kite, cutting fuel consumption by some 4 tonnes per day. Now that's not an insignificant saving. I wonder if they're thinking about fitting giant kites onto many more cargo vessels now. Strange how things go full circle - from Sail, to Steam, to Oil & Diesel, and back to Sail.
I wonder what Firebird.com might be worth?
Sadly, not for sale.
But what I did find rather suprising, in a nice way, is to see what something do do with 're' was up for. Though quite how they funded that cocks an eyebrow.
So, maybe that bodes well for Junkk.com?
Also, and again sadly, not for sale though.
Creativematch - The million dollar 's' bought for UK domain name
But what I did find rather suprising, in a nice way, is to see what something do do with 're' was up for. Though quite how they funded that cocks an eyebrow.
So, maybe that bodes well for Junkk.com?
Also, and again sadly, not for sale though.
Creativematch - The million dollar 's' bought for UK domain name
NEWS/GO3 PR - Reading below the lines
I normally have a fair bit of time for what comes out of the Green Party Press Office, and am usually happy to print it with little, if any comment 'as is'.
I fear that this must be an exception; not so much for the content (which you, as big boys and girls, can make judgements upon for yourselves), but as an example of what I personally don't like seeing, and as much as I do, in matters of headline grabbing.
Here's what I got:
CANCER ‘CAUSED BY POLLUTION’, MEP LUCAS TO TELL BRIGHTON WOMEN
Event: MEP Caroline Lucas speaks at ‘C’s the Day’ cancer prevention event
Place: Friends’ Meeting House, Ship St, Brighton
Time: Saturday, February 9th, 10am-4pm. Dr Lucas to speak at 2.15pm
CANCER is often caused by environmental factors including toxic chemicals added to household goods, pesticides and poor air quality, local Green Party MEP Caroline Lucas will tell a Brighton cancer-prevention day.
Dr Lucas said: “Levels of breast cancer are rising across the EU – especially in eastern Europe and the UK, where one woman in nine will be diagnosed with the disease at some point in their lives.
“An increasing number of scientists are pointing to the link between toxic chemicals – especially so-called gender-bending hormone-disruptors – and breast cancer, which kills more than 10,000 people each year in the UK alone.
“Similarly links are being found between pesticide use and cancers. Yet these technologies are all growing apace – the Government and EU simply must exercise caution, and put human health above the profits of their friends in the companies that manufacture them.”
I am in no doubt that amongst many consequences of modern life, 'pollution' (however that may be defined) is high on the probable causes of cancer.
However, I do not believe that headline to be an accurate representation of the situation, and while the more qualifying statements below do express it better I fear that, to me at least, this did not come across at all well, no matter how worthy the thinking (and, one presumes, call to action) of that last para.
I fear that this must be an exception; not so much for the content (which you, as big boys and girls, can make judgements upon for yourselves), but as an example of what I personally don't like seeing, and as much as I do, in matters of headline grabbing.
Here's what I got:
CANCER ‘CAUSED BY POLLUTION’, MEP LUCAS TO TELL BRIGHTON WOMEN
Event: MEP Caroline Lucas speaks at ‘C’s the Day’ cancer prevention event
Place: Friends’ Meeting House, Ship St, Brighton
Time: Saturday, February 9th, 10am-4pm. Dr Lucas to speak at 2.15pm
CANCER is often caused by environmental factors including toxic chemicals added to household goods, pesticides and poor air quality, local Green Party MEP Caroline Lucas will tell a Brighton cancer-prevention day.
Dr Lucas said: “Levels of breast cancer are rising across the EU – especially in eastern Europe and the UK, where one woman in nine will be diagnosed with the disease at some point in their lives.
“An increasing number of scientists are pointing to the link between toxic chemicals – especially so-called gender-bending hormone-disruptors – and breast cancer, which kills more than 10,000 people each year in the UK alone.
“Similarly links are being found between pesticide use and cancers. Yet these technologies are all growing apace – the Government and EU simply must exercise caution, and put human health above the profits of their friends in the companies that manufacture them.”
I am in no doubt that amongst many consequences of modern life, 'pollution' (however that may be defined) is high on the probable causes of cancer.
However, I do not believe that headline to be an accurate representation of the situation, and while the more qualifying statements below do express it better I fear that, to me at least, this did not come across at all well, no matter how worthy the thinking (and, one presumes, call to action) of that last para.
Desperately seeking Susan. Or Bob, Carol, Ted & Alice
Last night I attended an investment funding event at (and, I think, co-sponsored by) the University of Worcester School of Business.
There were others involved, with the lead being a brokerage called Beer & Partners, but also Advantage West Midlands as well.
Initially billed as a 'Dragon's Den', I almost didn't go because of the connotations of that sick show, but in the form of a 'Business Angel' Panel, which it was, I am glad I did.
A well-attended event, there was a good 100 folk there, so interest was high. And I recognized a few faces.
The panel comprised some experienced investors, though the names meant little to me: Mike Weaver (head of Beer in this neck 'o the woods), Kerry Jones, and Jim Walker.
The latter came out with the quote of the evening, which at least made it for me: 'Any product which addresses environmental issues is now really important, and top of any investor's list'.
And the pitches were all from 'green' businesses, which was a complete, if pleasant, surprise. There was an automotive fuel efficiency device and two energy monitoring devices/systems, which is an area I know quite a lot about of course.
At about 10mins, with feedback from panel and Q&A, it all scooted through in a very interesting hour.
I was mainly there as all that I am up to has hit the next hurdle of actually getting what I am doing to market, and into profit, and for that I know I need people with me. So, interestingly, earlier that day I had been engaged in just such an effort. And pretty encouraging it was, too. One was an interview, whereby a very talented and savvy post grad was seeing why she would want to spend a month here. I hope she got the answers she sought, and hence will. The other was with a marketing guy who for once was not looking for an upfront fee before doing anything. And he is both local, experienced and connected.
But as I do think investors may well still be part of the mix, I was keen to see how one might package the proposition.
Three interesting products. Three personable chaps pitching. But I was encouraged, because I had been thinking what I was up to and capable of would not be up to the task. Yet I felt my pitch, when it comes, would stack up very well in comparison. And the judges, though I suspect being very nice about it all, seemed interested and keen to develop things with these guys, though I actually had some reservations from my knowledge of market conditions, in several areas, for at least a couple of them.
Also interesting was the pitches. All were cut off. And all were cut off by spending too much time on what it was at the expense of how it would make money, and where, with who, etc. An easy mistake to make, and one I have done a lot by being the creator and not so focused on the profit motive aspects.
Also of note was the amounts requested, especially with some fairly hefty capital-requiring proposals, and/or also with significant staffing levels of senior folk for as yet unproven market concepts. Numbers of £150k were being mentioned, which can get gobbled up in a flash! Heck, I could do that with Junkk just on a sales director for a year.
Speaking of which, one the angels mentioned something I did not know, which is that supermarkets expect associated marketing budgets to be attached to any 'product' they engage. Worth bearing in mind for RE:tie.
There were also several other panel questions that seldom were addressed in the pitches, but were good to know as being important for inclusion and also as points of priority in such pitches.
IP was seldom highlighted, but is obviously key.
But the one thing that stood out above all that these guys were looking for is the management team. In place... and on the case.
And that is what I don't yet have, and must soon get.
Thing is, this event got me no further, just as have any conversations I have had with in theory 'innovator-supportive' Gov//NGO organizations, as to how I find such folk.
But I'm clawing closer... I think.
There were others involved, with the lead being a brokerage called Beer & Partners, but also Advantage West Midlands as well.
Initially billed as a 'Dragon's Den', I almost didn't go because of the connotations of that sick show, but in the form of a 'Business Angel' Panel, which it was, I am glad I did.
A well-attended event, there was a good 100 folk there, so interest was high. And I recognized a few faces.
The panel comprised some experienced investors, though the names meant little to me: Mike Weaver (head of Beer in this neck 'o the woods), Kerry Jones, and Jim Walker.
The latter came out with the quote of the evening, which at least made it for me: 'Any product which addresses environmental issues is now really important, and top of any investor's list'.
And the pitches were all from 'green' businesses, which was a complete, if pleasant, surprise. There was an automotive fuel efficiency device and two energy monitoring devices/systems, which is an area I know quite a lot about of course.
At about 10mins, with feedback from panel and Q&A, it all scooted through in a very interesting hour.
I was mainly there as all that I am up to has hit the next hurdle of actually getting what I am doing to market, and into profit, and for that I know I need people with me. So, interestingly, earlier that day I had been engaged in just such an effort. And pretty encouraging it was, too. One was an interview, whereby a very talented and savvy post grad was seeing why she would want to spend a month here. I hope she got the answers she sought, and hence will. The other was with a marketing guy who for once was not looking for an upfront fee before doing anything. And he is both local, experienced and connected.
But as I do think investors may well still be part of the mix, I was keen to see how one might package the proposition.
Three interesting products. Three personable chaps pitching. But I was encouraged, because I had been thinking what I was up to and capable of would not be up to the task. Yet I felt my pitch, when it comes, would stack up very well in comparison. And the judges, though I suspect being very nice about it all, seemed interested and keen to develop things with these guys, though I actually had some reservations from my knowledge of market conditions, in several areas, for at least a couple of them.
Also interesting was the pitches. All were cut off. And all were cut off by spending too much time on what it was at the expense of how it would make money, and where, with who, etc. An easy mistake to make, and one I have done a lot by being the creator and not so focused on the profit motive aspects.
Also of note was the amounts requested, especially with some fairly hefty capital-requiring proposals, and/or also with significant staffing levels of senior folk for as yet unproven market concepts. Numbers of £150k were being mentioned, which can get gobbled up in a flash! Heck, I could do that with Junkk just on a sales director for a year.
Speaking of which, one the angels mentioned something I did not know, which is that supermarkets expect associated marketing budgets to be attached to any 'product' they engage. Worth bearing in mind for RE:tie.
There were also several other panel questions that seldom were addressed in the pitches, but were good to know as being important for inclusion and also as points of priority in such pitches.
IP was seldom highlighted, but is obviously key.
But the one thing that stood out above all that these guys were looking for is the management team. In place... and on the case.
And that is what I don't yet have, and must soon get.
Thing is, this event got me no further, just as have any conversations I have had with in theory 'innovator-supportive' Gov//NGO organizations, as to how I find such folk.
But I'm clawing closer... I think.
Water, water, everywhere......
..... and but few drops of common sense in sight!
Today, our esteemed gov. (through DEFRA) launched its strategy for the future of securing water supplies in England. See this report from Government Network News.
The strategy's proposals include:-
- "The aim to reduce water usage to 120 litres per person per day by 2030 from the current level of roughly 150 litres per person per day, through a combination of efficient technology, metering and tariffs."
i.e. We'll all pay more through new tariffs. Sounds like all stick and no carrot to me!
- Possible mandatory metering
Shouldn't this have been done years ago? At least for any new developments?
- New proposals to tackle surface water drainage.
"proposals include introducing surface water management plans to co-ordinate activity, clarifying responsibilities for sustainable drainage systems, and reviewing the ability of new development to connect surface water automatically into the public sewer."
'introducing surface water management plans to co-ordinate activity' - Meaning what exactly? Make it up as you go along?
'Clarifying responsibilities' - like, admitting that now one has any that they are accountable for now?
'connect surface water automatically into the public sewer' - errrrm, no! Surface water runs off into the public storm drain system. And the ideal thing would be to make such surface water run-off much slower in order to inhibit flooding.
And wouldn't it have made really good sense to make it mandatory for all new development to incorporate rain water harvesting systems for grey water usage? That would achieve a much bigger consumption reduction target very easily.
And, of course, lots of proposals for consultations on things like flooding and erosion.
But not a single comment about better enforcement to make the various water authorities fix and repair the zillions of leaks that our current potable water distribution system has.
All in all, it looks like another complete waste of taxpayers money, designed to provide jobs for government sponsored quangos and agencies who talk, talk, talk and talk, and do, well, very bloody little! Sorry, there is one outcome that is inevitable; it will hit every one of us in the pocket, as usual, as it will certainly make us pay more for the water that we do use.
Today, our esteemed gov. (through DEFRA) launched its strategy for the future of securing water supplies in England. See this report from Government Network News.
The strategy's proposals include:-
- "The aim to reduce water usage to 120 litres per person per day by 2030 from the current level of roughly 150 litres per person per day, through a combination of efficient technology, metering and tariffs."
i.e. We'll all pay more through new tariffs. Sounds like all stick and no carrot to me!
- Possible mandatory metering
Shouldn't this have been done years ago? At least for any new developments?
- New proposals to tackle surface water drainage.
"proposals include introducing surface water management plans to co-ordinate activity, clarifying responsibilities for sustainable drainage systems, and reviewing the ability of new development to connect surface water automatically into the public sewer."
'introducing surface water management plans to co-ordinate activity' - Meaning what exactly? Make it up as you go along?
'Clarifying responsibilities' - like, admitting that now one has any that they are accountable for now?
'connect surface water automatically into the public sewer' - errrrm, no! Surface water runs off into the public storm drain system. And the ideal thing would be to make such surface water run-off much slower in order to inhibit flooding.
And wouldn't it have made really good sense to make it mandatory for all new development to incorporate rain water harvesting systems for grey water usage? That would achieve a much bigger consumption reduction target very easily.
And, of course, lots of proposals for consultations on things like flooding and erosion.
But not a single comment about better enforcement to make the various water authorities fix and repair the zillions of leaks that our current potable water distribution system has.
All in all, it looks like another complete waste of taxpayers money, designed to provide jobs for government sponsored quangos and agencies who talk, talk, talk and talk, and do, well, very bloody little! Sorry, there is one outcome that is inevitable; it will hit every one of us in the pocket, as usual, as it will certainly make us pay more for the water that we do use.
EVENT - ECOPACK '08
I can't believe it has taken me this long to post this up.Probably one of the biggest events we're taking part in so far, with hopefully major benefits for the cuases of both the RE:tie and Junkk.com message of second use design.
MONTH - Next
FIELD: Enviro-related
WHEN: 12-13 March
WHAT: ECOPACK '08 (and Packaging Innovations)
WHAT... MORE?: Does what it says on the... er... pack. The premier UK trade event for what can, and should, come in the world of packaging. Note that in addition to 'Innovation' they also are talking 'ECO'. Of course, some can honestly, if immodestly, make the claim to be both.
WHERE: NEC, Brum
WHO: Me!!!!!! I have just been asked to be a speaker on both days, which is a genuine honour and real endorsement of the concept. Now all I have to do is figure out what to say!!!
HOW: As far as I'm aware, it's free if you register.
URL: http://www.easyfairs.com/shows/detail.aspx?ShowID=464
COMMENTS: It's a trade event, so you'd need to be pretty keen on your packaging to go just for general public interest. But the Junkk.com stand is ready and waiting to tickle your fancy!!!!
This is posted as a new blog feature.
The little things
With a Mum next door I need to keep an eye on all day, I am quite sympathetic to those in a similar position, and appreciative of any efforts to help.
Hence I was more than interested in a BBC piece, fronted by Tony Robinson, pointing at a booklet by the Alzheimers Society, called 'Putting Care Right'.
However, in downloading this PDF, I am minded of some design principles I'd really like to advocate, especially when it comes to web publishing (and a few hard cover books taboot).
It can be done, and may even be an option here, but as it is not obvious that is in fact a good first point:
1 - clearly point upfront to a/the eco-print option!
Then there are a couple of others:
2 - Don't use reverse text. It gobbles ink!
3 - Make the most of the page. If you have to have a super-cool design, fine, but for printing just get the info across in as economical a way possible. Small pictures and fill the page.
Yes I know, I should leave it on screen. But at often a few Meg I actually deem printing and deleting the file possibly more eco (see a previous Prof's Poser), and in any case defy most to say this is not something they'd prefer printed out to refer to and carry about, for instance when visiting a home.
Hence I was more than interested in a BBC piece, fronted by Tony Robinson, pointing at a booklet by the Alzheimers Society, called 'Putting Care Right'.
However, in downloading this PDF, I am minded of some design principles I'd really like to advocate, especially when it comes to web publishing (and a few hard cover books taboot).
It can be done, and may even be an option here, but as it is not obvious that is in fact a good first point:
1 - clearly point upfront to a/the eco-print option!
Then there are a couple of others:
2 - Don't use reverse text. It gobbles ink!
3 - Make the most of the page. If you have to have a super-cool design, fine, but for printing just get the info across in as economical a way possible. Small pictures and fill the page.
Yes I know, I should leave it on screen. But at often a few Meg I actually deem printing and deleting the file possibly more eco (see a previous Prof's Poser), and in any case defy most to say this is not something they'd prefer printed out to refer to and carry about, for instance when visiting a home.
What is it bears do in the woods again?
I fear I am getting oversensitive to anything that smacks of overkill on the MWCC front, so must tread cautiously here.
I merely pose a question, having watched a BBC news slot about bears not hibernating in a UK zoo on account of the warm weather.... caused by.... you guessed it.
Do they usually do this? I'd have thought things were tad different as they are in an less than typical enviornment, namely a zoo pen in the more temperate UK.
So are our ursine chums usually tucked up over the winter months?
Sadly these days my trust factor in the science I am fed is so low that lack of such context simply makes me even more dubious.
And for some, if shown to be 'a stretch', it simply provides ammo to discredit other stuff that certainly should be making us take note at unusual weather/climate (whatever, I just gave up on a blog with two scientists knocking spots off each other on the correct usage of these. Who cares!!) anomalies.
No sh*t!
I merely pose a question, having watched a BBC news slot about bears not hibernating in a UK zoo on account of the warm weather.... caused by.... you guessed it.
Do they usually do this? I'd have thought things were tad different as they are in an less than typical enviornment, namely a zoo pen in the more temperate UK.
So are our ursine chums usually tucked up over the winter months?
Sadly these days my trust factor in the science I am fed is so low that lack of such context simply makes me even more dubious.
And for some, if shown to be 'a stretch', it simply provides ammo to discredit other stuff that certainly should be making us take note at unusual weather/climate (whatever, I just gave up on a blog with two scientists knocking spots off each other on the correct usage of these. Who cares!!) anomalies.
No sh*t!
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
NEWS/Commercial PR - NEW RESEARCH REVEALS BRITS THINK GOING ‘GREEN’ COSTS THE EARTH
Normally I am a bit dubious about research, especially on things green... and even more so when part of a press release on behalf of an energy company.
But I thought this was worth sharing, as provided, but suitably editted to share the insights with a little less of the sales pitch. But I will pop in a few links for you to find out more on their offering if so inspired. But would also always advise doing a bunch of research before committing to anything. I rather fancy I have had a few other PRs of late suggesting they are also the only odd ones rewarding you for cutting back. Indeed. But to be encouraged by both suppliers and consumers to be sure!
NEW RESEARCH REVEALS BRITS THINK GOING ‘GREEN’ COSTS THE EARTH Despite increasing pressure to go ‘green’, new research released today (5 February 2008) by Southern Electric shows many Britons remain unconvinced that they can afford to live greener lives. The Southern Electric survey reveals that over half of Britons think the environment is of vital importance and 85% are willing to consider lifestyle changes to save energy within the next 10 years. The majority also believes that making greener choices as a consumer usually involves spending more money; and lack of money is cited as the main reason for not making changes to save energy at home. Independent financial expert and TV money man, Alvin Hall, says: “The Southern Electric research suggests that, while people ‘talk the talk’ on green issues, few ‘walk the walk’ and many use money as an excuse. Some green products do cost a premium but helping to save the planet doesn’t have to break the bank or be a chore. In fact, the average home can actually save around £300 a year by simply being more energy efficient. “Home insulation, energy saving appliances and cutting down on energy consumption all help and will lead to cheaper energy bills in the long run as well as benefiting the environment.” Southern Electric is the first energy company to actively encourage customers to cut back on energy use through ‘better plan’, its unique green energy product. ‘better plan’ is a home energy service that pays customers to cut their bills – giving bonuses, discounts and cash credits for using less energy . The cash credits are then applied as a reduction to the customers’ energy bills.
But I thought this was worth sharing, as provided, but suitably editted to share the insights with a little less of the sales pitch. But I will pop in a few links for you to find out more on their offering if so inspired. But would also always advise doing a bunch of research before committing to anything. I rather fancy I have had a few other PRs of late suggesting they are also the only odd ones rewarding you for cutting back. Indeed. But to be encouraged by both suppliers and consumers to be sure!
NEW RESEARCH REVEALS BRITS THINK GOING ‘GREEN’ COSTS THE EARTH Despite increasing pressure to go ‘green’, new research released today (5 February 2008) by Southern Electric shows many Britons remain unconvinced that they can afford to live greener lives. The Southern Electric survey reveals that over half of Britons think the environment is of vital importance and 85% are willing to consider lifestyle changes to save energy within the next 10 years. The majority also believes that making greener choices as a consumer usually involves spending more money; and lack of money is cited as the main reason for not making changes to save energy at home. Independent financial expert and TV money man, Alvin Hall, says: “The Southern Electric research suggests that, while people ‘talk the talk’ on green issues, few ‘walk the walk’ and many use money as an excuse. Some green products do cost a premium but helping to save the planet doesn’t have to break the bank or be a chore. In fact, the average home can actually save around £300 a year by simply being more energy efficient. “Home insulation, energy saving appliances and cutting down on energy consumption all help and will lead to cheaper energy bills in the long run as well as benefiting the environment.” Southern Electric is the first energy company to actively encourage customers to cut back on energy use through ‘better plan’, its unique green energy product. ‘better plan’ is a home energy service that pays customers to cut their bills – giving bonuses, discounts and cash credits for using less energy . The cash credits are then applied as a reduction to the customers’ energy bills.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
NEWS/Commercial PR - All that glitters?
I've often maintained that where there is green there can be gold.
Nothing wrong with that at all. Where it is not so great is when those who are trying to do their ethical best for the planet and our kids' futures end up thinking they are doing stuff, often for considerable investments of time and money, that may not be as green as they seem.
Hence I reproduce an editted down, but as provided PR, with all due caveats as always, which nonetheless should give you pause for thought.
And as they have been nice enough to share information, I am happy to add the links, but do of course advise that you go into any dealings with anyone with eyes wide open.
Ethical does not mean Environmental, New Report Finds
A study of ethical and SRI funds' Top 10 holdings available in the UK - which purport to be socially responsible and ethical - has shown that very few actually invest in companies which are directly tackling climate change.
The report, 'A Guide to Climate Change Investment' available via the authors' website, by independent financial adviser Holden & Partners, examined the Top 10 holdings of all SRI, ethical and environmental funds available to UK private investors.
It found that most SRI and Ethical funds' top ten holdings are surprisingly mainstream, with names like Vodafone and Royal Bank of Scotland occurring time and again. However, many also have holdings in large mining corporations as well as BP, Shell, Total and other oil majors.
As a result, investors in SRI and ethical funds, who were hoping to support the low-carbon economy, may find that they are buying into multinationals more associated with being part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
Of the SRI funds that gave full information about their holdings, Henderson's Industries of the Future scored most highly with 51.1% of its fund in environmental solutions providers. In contrast, environmental stocks make up less than one per cent of L&G Ethical Funds portfolio.
The new generation of environmental and climate change funds is far more focused on companies developing global solutions to environmental problems. However, some of these also throw up some curious holdings, including Porsche, Renault, Nestlé and Danone.
The report highlights that there are a number of 'pure-play' environmental investment vehicles available with 100% exposure to environmental solutions providers. These include listed funds investing in worldwide listed stocks.
About the Guide to Climate Change Investment
The Green Guide shows investors how to participate in and benefit from investment flows into environmental markets. There is a huge range of funds available but not all of them are tackling climate change in their investment approach. The Guide helps shed light on this dynamic and complex sector.
The information was gathered directly from investment managers. It was as complete as possible at time of going to publication. Where no data was supplied, this was after several attempts at contacting the fund managers to ask for the data.
Mark Hoskin, partner at Holden & Partners is quoted as saying: "The world is changing very fast. As an investor in twenty years will you look back and wonder why you did not read the signals. The global market for environmental goods and services is incredibly exciting and we believe there is a good chance that within the Climate Change Funds you may find the Microsoft of the future."
Now, wouldn't it be nice if Junkk.com were one?
Nothing wrong with that at all. Where it is not so great is when those who are trying to do their ethical best for the planet and our kids' futures end up thinking they are doing stuff, often for considerable investments of time and money, that may not be as green as they seem.
Hence I reproduce an editted down, but as provided PR, with all due caveats as always, which nonetheless should give you pause for thought.
And as they have been nice enough to share information, I am happy to add the links, but do of course advise that you go into any dealings with anyone with eyes wide open.
Ethical does not mean Environmental, New Report Finds
A study of ethical and SRI funds' Top 10 holdings available in the UK - which purport to be socially responsible and ethical - has shown that very few actually invest in companies which are directly tackling climate change.
The report, 'A Guide to Climate Change Investment' available via the authors' website, by independent financial adviser Holden & Partners, examined the Top 10 holdings of all SRI, ethical and environmental funds available to UK private investors.
It found that most SRI and Ethical funds' top ten holdings are surprisingly mainstream, with names like Vodafone and Royal Bank of Scotland occurring time and again. However, many also have holdings in large mining corporations as well as BP, Shell, Total and other oil majors.
As a result, investors in SRI and ethical funds, who were hoping to support the low-carbon economy, may find that they are buying into multinationals more associated with being part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
Of the SRI funds that gave full information about their holdings, Henderson's Industries of the Future scored most highly with 51.1% of its fund in environmental solutions providers. In contrast, environmental stocks make up less than one per cent of L&G Ethical Funds portfolio.
The new generation of environmental and climate change funds is far more focused on companies developing global solutions to environmental problems. However, some of these also throw up some curious holdings, including Porsche, Renault, Nestlé and Danone.
The report highlights that there are a number of 'pure-play' environmental investment vehicles available with 100% exposure to environmental solutions providers. These include listed funds investing in worldwide listed stocks.
About the Guide to Climate Change Investment
The Green Guide shows investors how to participate in and benefit from investment flows into environmental markets. There is a huge range of funds available but not all of them are tackling climate change in their investment approach. The Guide helps shed light on this dynamic and complex sector.
The information was gathered directly from investment managers. It was as complete as possible at time of going to publication. Where no data was supplied, this was after several attempts at contacting the fund managers to ask for the data.
Mark Hoskin, partner at Holden & Partners is quoted as saying: "The world is changing very fast. As an investor in twenty years will you look back and wonder why you did not read the signals. The global market for environmental goods and services is incredibly exciting and we believe there is a good chance that within the Climate Change Funds you may find the Microsoft of the future."
Now, wouldn't it be nice if Junkk.com were one?
What a difference a year makes!
Back in January 2007, Peter posted an interesting piece on an interview with three big cheeses at Davos. Having heard the piece, and commented accordingly, about the facile answers given, I remembered a quote from Shell's big cheese, Jeroen van der Veer, who, responding to a pertinent question from John Humphrys about the possibility of peak oil, said, “In 20 years time we’ll use more oil and gas than we do today”.
Well, according to this report from ThisIsScotland, van der Veer appears to have changed his mind somewhat.
"In an e-letter to staff that must surely be splattered right across the Big Oil community by now, and be doing the rounds of NOCs (national oil corporations), Shell's CEO basically says that conventional oil output will peak in seven years - oh, and gas shortages are on the way, too."
Now that's what I call an about face! And if the CEO of Shell is now admitting that the planet is going to have an energy problem (due to the lack of petroleum resources and natural gas) sooner rather than later, then it looks as if the human race's need to get into renewable technologies is going to be even more urgent than any of us ever realised.
Well, according to this report from ThisIsScotland, van der Veer appears to have changed his mind somewhat.
"In an e-letter to staff that must surely be splattered right across the Big Oil community by now, and be doing the rounds of NOCs (national oil corporations), Shell's CEO basically says that conventional oil output will peak in seven years - oh, and gas shortages are on the way, too."
Now that's what I call an about face! And if the CEO of Shell is now admitting that the planet is going to have an energy problem (due to the lack of petroleum resources and natural gas) sooner rather than later, then it looks as if the human race's need to get into renewable technologies is going to be even more urgent than any of us ever realised.
Monday, February 04, 2008
Limiting food choice to cut carbon emissions?
I don't recollect anybody actually saying this, other than on the ultra green, vegan fringes, but it seems to be exercising the mind of one of Sainsbury's directors as reported by First4Farming.
"Managing needs versus demand seems like a form of communism, he said. It's something the world we are living in isn't ready for."
The thing is, if climate change does tick past any of the theoretical tipping points some time in the future, we all may have no option but to eat only what is available locally (if amongst the lucky ones). However, in the meantime, the idea of a 'meat tax' might just have our erstwhile chancellor licking his lips in anticipation of yet another way to fill the coffers!
"Managing needs versus demand seems like a form of communism, he said. It's something the world we are living in isn't ready for."
The thing is, if climate change does tick past any of the theoretical tipping points some time in the future, we all may have no option but to eat only what is available locally (if amongst the lucky ones). However, in the meantime, the idea of a 'meat tax' might just have our erstwhile chancellor licking his lips in anticipation of yet another way to fill the coffers!
PROF'S POSER - Burning questions
As a result of this blog post, and subsequent comments, I was wondering if anyone knew what the rules on burning domestic waste actually were?
More grist to the mill?
I've always been fascinated with water mills and have never really understood why so many disappeared during my younger days. I guess that cheap electricity made them largely uneconomic to run.
But, water mills themselves can, and do, in a few instances, generate electricity in their own right. However, the DBERR's (it used to be the simple to understand DTI) rules on awarding double ROC's (Renewable Obligation Certificates) on all micro-generation projects appear to be pushing many water mills out of the equation as reported in CarbonFree.
"For example at Tellisford, with Declared Net Capacity (DNC) of 55kW, the site will generate about 280,000 kWh per year, on which the income including its single ROC will be about £26,600. Yet a slightly smaller site with DNC of 50kW would generate about 231,000 kWh per year, on which including double ROCs it would earn about £33,500. Thus a mill generating 17% less electricity would receive 26% more money."
Now that is simply insane. Yet another example of rules being ill thought out, poorly implemented and actually forcing the opposite of what they were intended to do in the first place.
Well done (extremely sarcastically, of course) DBERR.
Addendum:
I meant to include this too. It rather reminds me of the retired engineer who rebuilt a derelict old water mill into a highly desirable property somewhere in Derbyshire some 15 to 20 years ago. He didn't want the mill wheel working and doing nothing, so he adapted it to generate enough power for his own benefit. All was going well until Severn Trent Water Authority decided that it would charge him thousands of pounds a year for using their water to generate electricity!
Of course, he simply shut down the mill wheel.
But, water mills themselves can, and do, in a few instances, generate electricity in their own right. However, the DBERR's (it used to be the simple to understand DTI) rules on awarding double ROC's (Renewable Obligation Certificates) on all micro-generation projects appear to be pushing many water mills out of the equation as reported in CarbonFree.
"For example at Tellisford, with Declared Net Capacity (DNC) of 55kW, the site will generate about 280,000 kWh per year, on which the income including its single ROC will be about £26,600. Yet a slightly smaller site with DNC of 50kW would generate about 231,000 kWh per year, on which including double ROCs it would earn about £33,500. Thus a mill generating 17% less electricity would receive 26% more money."
Now that is simply insane. Yet another example of rules being ill thought out, poorly implemented and actually forcing the opposite of what they were intended to do in the first place.
Well done (extremely sarcastically, of course) DBERR.
Addendum:
I meant to include this too. It rather reminds me of the retired engineer who rebuilt a derelict old water mill into a highly desirable property somewhere in Derbyshire some 15 to 20 years ago. He didn't want the mill wheel working and doing nothing, so he adapted it to generate enough power for his own benefit. All was going well until Severn Trent Water Authority decided that it would charge him thousands of pounds a year for using their water to generate electricity!
Of course, he simply shut down the mill wheel.
Understatement of the Year
Pickles voices concern over possible ‘bin bailiffs’
Claims that councils will be able to employ bailiffs to collect unpaid bills from save-as-you-throw pilots have not been denied by Defra and the Local Government Association (LGA)
The latest 'Nu-speak' is it? 'Does not deny’ means what, exactly? Is that a yes, or a no? Or is it the latest fudge in a whole candy store of sickly treats to see what can be got away with, obfuscated or plausibly denied later. At least it used to be 'Yes, Minister'. Now it's 'That is clearly not acceptable, and does need looking at...maybe' Minister'.
Bearing in mind that politicians of all hues, and from every area that requires a vote to stay in power seek public support, I am amazed that such things get floated at all in this way, and then when they do to such muted responses from the opposition. Are such sources of revenue really so attractive as to blind these people to how this is playing out in the real world?
No wants to see unnecessary waste or litter, and hence the punitive options may well still need to be considered. But not as a first resort. And not in such a blanket manner. And not in the hands of the folk who currently seem to be being given the keys to the baton cupboard.
I the other day watched a YouTube video of an bailiff assaulting an old boy trying to gain access to his home to 'enforce' the BBC license fee. And these are the kind of thoroughly discredited individuals that it is proposed to let loose as agents of a ‘guilty until proven innocent’ culture that is developing today, by increasingly over-staffed, overpaid, yet responsibility and accountability-shy public servants who like to hide behind quangos, consultants and other 3rd parties to try and distance themselves from the possible (!) negative consequences of their decisions and/or actions.
Before addressing all ways to impose and profit from public compliance, I'd suggest a lot more effort goes first into ensuring every possible way had been established to ensure they can, and preferably WANT to comply. So there’s a lot of joined up thinking needed... and waaaay before one demands anything of the public!
As to using one's vote I could not agree more. But it is also a rather disingenuous argument. How many can really claim to be able to pinpoint the individual numpties messing our lives up at local or national level with sufficient accuracy any more (they all change so much it's hard to even keep up with who carries what responsibility) to target one's electoral protest?
I'm sorry, as with the road pricing, this is one environmental campaigner who will be fighting a potentially highly enviROI+ measure simply because in its current form I have zero trust in the reasons behind and competencies of those trying to instigate it.
Claims that councils will be able to employ bailiffs to collect unpaid bills from save-as-you-throw pilots have not been denied by Defra and the Local Government Association (LGA)
The latest 'Nu-speak' is it? 'Does not deny’ means what, exactly? Is that a yes, or a no? Or is it the latest fudge in a whole candy store of sickly treats to see what can be got away with, obfuscated or plausibly denied later. At least it used to be 'Yes, Minister'. Now it's 'That is clearly not acceptable, and does need looking at...maybe' Minister'.
Bearing in mind that politicians of all hues, and from every area that requires a vote to stay in power seek public support, I am amazed that such things get floated at all in this way, and then when they do to such muted responses from the opposition. Are such sources of revenue really so attractive as to blind these people to how this is playing out in the real world?
No wants to see unnecessary waste or litter, and hence the punitive options may well still need to be considered. But not as a first resort. And not in such a blanket manner. And not in the hands of the folk who currently seem to be being given the keys to the baton cupboard.
I the other day watched a YouTube video of an bailiff assaulting an old boy trying to gain access to his home to 'enforce' the BBC license fee. And these are the kind of thoroughly discredited individuals that it is proposed to let loose as agents of a ‘guilty until proven innocent’ culture that is developing today, by increasingly over-staffed, overpaid, yet responsibility and accountability-shy public servants who like to hide behind quangos, consultants and other 3rd parties to try and distance themselves from the possible (!) negative consequences of their decisions and/or actions.
Before addressing all ways to impose and profit from public compliance, I'd suggest a lot more effort goes first into ensuring every possible way had been established to ensure they can, and preferably WANT to comply. So there’s a lot of joined up thinking needed... and waaaay before one demands anything of the public!
As to using one's vote I could not agree more. But it is also a rather disingenuous argument. How many can really claim to be able to pinpoint the individual numpties messing our lives up at local or national level with sufficient accuracy any more (they all change so much it's hard to even keep up with who carries what responsibility) to target one's electoral protest?
I'm sorry, as with the road pricing, this is one environmental campaigner who will be fighting a potentially highly enviROI+ measure simply because in its current form I have zero trust in the reasons behind and competencies of those trying to instigate it.
Animal welfare more important than climate change
That's one of the quite surprising (well, at least to me) outcomes of a poll conducted by the Co-op of 100,000 members as reported in Money Observer.
Now I don't normally like surveys, but 100,000 completed questionnaires has got to represent a reasonable statistical sample, even if only of Co-op members and customers.
"Only 4% rate climate change as their top ethical priority, compared with 21% who think animal welfare is the most important issue and 14% who rate fair trade as their key concern."
"Shoppers' worries about the environment are focused on issues other than climate change. Twice as many are concerned about the amount of packaging on their food as think global warming is the most important issue."
So there you have it. Climate change is a minor issue amongst consumers. Packaging, animal welfare and ethical trading are far more important.
What does this tell us? Well, I reckon that this result is clearly an indication of just how consumers have switched off from the debate on climate change as a result of the constant tis/tisn't arguments, the obfuscation coming from our own gov (and its appointed quangos etc.), the general feeling that our gov sees it as a way of sanctioning various additional taxes and the generally media led opinion that there's nothing we can do about it anyway.
Now all that is simply going to make moving forward on tackling climate change even more difficult. We are going to need some very strong leadership. Anybody see any sign of that about at the moment?
Now I don't normally like surveys, but 100,000 completed questionnaires has got to represent a reasonable statistical sample, even if only of Co-op members and customers.
"Only 4% rate climate change as their top ethical priority, compared with 21% who think animal welfare is the most important issue and 14% who rate fair trade as their key concern."
"Shoppers' worries about the environment are focused on issues other than climate change. Twice as many are concerned about the amount of packaging on their food as think global warming is the most important issue."
So there you have it. Climate change is a minor issue amongst consumers. Packaging, animal welfare and ethical trading are far more important.
What does this tell us? Well, I reckon that this result is clearly an indication of just how consumers have switched off from the debate on climate change as a result of the constant tis/tisn't arguments, the obfuscation coming from our own gov (and its appointed quangos etc.), the general feeling that our gov sees it as a way of sanctioning various additional taxes and the generally media led opinion that there's nothing we can do about it anyway.
Now all that is simply going to make moving forward on tackling climate change even more difficult. We are going to need some very strong leadership. Anybody see any sign of that about at the moment?
Saturday, February 02, 2008
The Hot Topic
I was wondering just what David King had been up to of late - things had gone very quiet. Well, it seems he has been co-authoring a new book 'The Hot Topic', which is not written "by eco-warriors, but by pragmatists, who care about understanding the science, examining the problems, and looking for technological and political solutions."
This is the first review (from The Telegraph) of the book that I've spotted. And I just might have to put my hand in my pocket to get hold of a copy.
An interesting conclusion is drawn by the reviewer - "when it comes to the question of who you should believe, Al Gore's rhetoric is much closer to the truth than Channel 4's fairy tales."
I think I'd worked that one out for myself, but it's interesting to see such a conclusion in one of the broadsheets.
This is the first review (from The Telegraph) of the book that I've spotted. And I just might have to put my hand in my pocket to get hold of a copy.
An interesting conclusion is drawn by the reviewer - "when it comes to the question of who you should believe, Al Gore's rhetoric is much closer to the truth than Channel 4's fairy tales."
I think I'd worked that one out for myself, but it's interesting to see such a conclusion in one of the broadsheets.
Friday, February 01, 2008
HSBC Bank is carbon neutral!
Add.. er (Pre?)endum/Prefix (by Junkk Male): I have reloaded this post, from its original origination date of 6/07/07 (why do Americans insist of flipping the dd/mm? It took some finding), for a few reasons:
1) It has to be the most commented/followed up upon (interestingly). Sorry HSBC.
2) I am impressed it is still being commented upon after all this time, but worry many might miss it in archive (I get a notification; I'm not sure if others do).
3) It has attracted a lot of very thoughtful, considered feedback, which is just how I like things here to proceed. The most recent is typical and most welcome. Check 'em out.
I think not! That's a claim waaaaaaay too far!
Further to the post earlier about 'green banking' (below the Live Earth post), HSBC now claims to be carbon neutral! From Carbon Free news.
1) It has to be the most commented/followed up upon (interestingly). Sorry HSBC.
2) I am impressed it is still being commented upon after all this time, but worry many might miss it in archive (I get a notification; I'm not sure if others do).
3) It has attracted a lot of very thoughtful, considered feedback, which is just how I like things here to proceed. The most recent is typical and most welcome. Check 'em out.
I think not! That's a claim waaaaaaay too far!
Further to the post earlier about 'green banking' (below the Live Earth post), HSBC now claims to be carbon neutral! From Carbon Free news.
"HSBC says it is the world's first major bank to become carbon neutral and has committed a further US$90 million over five years to reduce the bank's impact on the environment through a series of initiatives ...."
That's a hell of a claim, and seeing as there is no clearly agreed definition of carbon neutral - I'd love to see just how they attempt to justify it! Is every branch and office now generating its own renewable energy? Or does every branch and office now only use electricity from renewable sources? Does no-one travel? Are all new branches and offices built to be super energy efficient? Are all existing branches and offices being updated to be super energy efficient? Are all consumables and replacement equipment items that they purchase manufactured to zero carbon emission standards?
I'll bet they can't answer yes to any of them!
The only possible way they can justify this claim is by using considerable carbon offsetting, by paying someone else to recompense for their carbon emissions; which, as we have already pointed out on several occasion on this blog, is akin to ordering a diet coke alongside your double burger and claiming it to be part of your dieting program!
Greenwash, green-bullsh*t, green-veneer, green-smoke and green-mirrors. A veritable green smorgasbord of false, sickly green tosh. What's the betting that they are claiming to be carbon negative within a few years time?
ADDENDUM (via JunkkMale):
HSBC gives key marketer ‘golden handcuff’ offer - may explain something (or not), about the state of ads (especially 'green' ones) these days, if bankers are running the marketing.
ADDENDUM 2 (JunkkMale):
To add a hyperlinked URL to the comment posts
ADDENDUM 3
HSBC on climate change and Stern - well, they are devoting a lot of people and stuff to talking about it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)