This from the Guardian highlights a few little nuances that may surprise you if you are lucky enough to have a few spare quid and choose to invest in one of the so called 'ethical funds'.
Reading it made me smile. There are obviously rather varying shades of ethical just as there are varying shades of green.
So, if you thought that your ethical fund investment was directly helping to tackle climate change, you just may have to reconsider having read this.
It's just not easy being green, or ethical, is it?
Monday, February 11, 2008
Bureaucrats - 200. Rainforests - Nil
And my brain into minus figures, if not near meltdown.What I should be doing is getting cracking on filling this lot out. But all I can think of doing is taking a picture and blogging (yes, I need help. In more ways than one).
You are looking of stacks of up to a dozen pages, from A to O, though with a few letters rating subsets from (i) to (iv), so probably around 30 stacks in all.
It all started so well. I stumbled across some nice folk who liked what I was doing and offered to help with the prototypes of the RE:tie for the show next month. So I went up to Brum to see what they could do and explain what was needed; we communed, and lo... it was good.
And it's all ready to kick off. With precisely a month to go. But... just... a bit of paperwork.
I didn't pay much attention as it was just one Excel document, but when it came time to address it (OK, deadline) it just kept on printing... and printing. No first born required, nor pint of blood, but amounts and levels of data required that go back in the past and project into the future that I can barely grasp the relevance of for this task, yet alone imagine how I will aquire... or complete.... ever.
Even the lovely lady who sent it to me was sympathetic, for she is but an intermediary working for the University and hired just to handle their responsibilities with such paperwork, as demanded from 'above' by... now who is that? A blue square with a circle of golden stars at the bottom of each page (only part-funded by, mind. Lord help me if I get another set from another bunch later!). Layer upon layer of 'EU-what!' to 'help' them 'help' me get a prototype ready.
And I must do it as I have no choice now but to. I am committed.
But sadly, I do not seem to have the luxury of a lovely lady hired for the sole purpose of filling such forms out.
Nope, despite writing that, the monkey is still very much resting full square on my shoulders.
And so, with a heavy everything I must now turn to Form A (i).....
You gotta larf
Sorry, but this just appealed to my sense of irony.On the page devoted to a piece on climate science (well, the apparent supression of a scientist in the field - Climate scientist they could not silence), I could not help but note what rather dominated the rest of the page. Not quite the same on the online version.
There's the medium. There's the message. There's mixed. And there's just, plain 'off'.
The media really does just love it all ways.
Just in case they don't 'moderate' it in:
Meanwhile, in the print edition, the majority of the page with this piece seems to be dominated for a Tesco ad for cheap petrol - 'Every litre helps'.
Not quite clear as to what, in the circumstances.
Delicious irony?'
Bet they're in with a chance at the Sunday Times "Best Green Companies" slot, mind.
To the winners, whoever they are, the spoils.
Zadie Smith sinks teeth into book awards - it is about the world of literature, but applies pretty much everywhere.
I've won a few. Lost more than I care to think on. But it's certainly hard these days to think of many that are judged purely on merit, without soem agenda creeping in.
Awards are, like most things these days, are merely products of an industry whose prime motivation is its own survival and the interests of those who work within it or feed off it to survive.
Winning is nice (and useful) if you are a winner. Not so great if you don't. But those nominated andhence competing are essentially irrelevant. It is the process, more than anything, that drives the system, rather than the product (though to some remoras, sorry, reporters, controversy can extend the period they can suck the life out of the topic).
So it is refreshing to say the least, if necessary to avoid accusations of sour grapes, to find a winner rather plainly stating it like it is.
Which, with luck, may briefly make for uncomfortabel reading for those who are paid way too much and have much more influence than they deserve, simply for being in the industry rtaher than contributing anything worthwhiel to it.
But though flawed, I see no hope for improvemnt, and hence the real winners will continue to be those nowhere near the podium.
I've won a few. Lost more than I care to think on. But it's certainly hard these days to think of many that are judged purely on merit, without soem agenda creeping in.
Awards are, like most things these days, are merely products of an industry whose prime motivation is its own survival and the interests of those who work within it or feed off it to survive.
Winning is nice (and useful) if you are a winner. Not so great if you don't. But those nominated andhence competing are essentially irrelevant. It is the process, more than anything, that drives the system, rather than the product (though to some remoras, sorry, reporters, controversy can extend the period they can suck the life out of the topic).
So it is refreshing to say the least, if necessary to avoid accusations of sour grapes, to find a winner rather plainly stating it like it is.
Which, with luck, may briefly make for uncomfortabel reading for those who are paid way too much and have much more influence than they deserve, simply for being in the industry rtaher than contributing anything worthwhiel to it.
But though flawed, I see no hope for improvemnt, and hence the real winners will continue to be those nowhere near the podium.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Led by donkeys; reported on by jackals
Watching the Andrew Marr show and decided to make a commment.
I simply could not let pass a continued notion coming across that I, as a member of the public, am apparently very happy with our Dear Leader's performance so far, or indeed upon the reporting on it.
I simply could not believe a News 24 report the other night, which was the first in as long as I could recall that involved our PM having an opinion, when the reporter seemed to be parroting a press relase, and casting an amazingly glow on the man's character based on the subjective belief of the reporter. I do not think it is an objective newsperson's' job to say how calm and confident a politcal indivdual is, or how genuine and honest his beliefs. This was a character endorsement too far in my view.
However, the main reason for my post is a comment made by the host regarding the fact we are enjoying some unseasonably warm weather that is described as showing Global Warming in action.
Just watched the slot with Peter Mandelson, where the competencies of our PM were raised. With all the huge issues swirling about us I can of late recall no peep from him, bar a glowing mention the other day by a BBC reporter who positively misted up at Mr. Brown's common person empathy via his deep interest in... football.
ps: Andrew, when the weather is unseasonably nice, if you have to come up with a reason it might be better to refer to the possible explanation as climate change rather than global warming. Otherwise you may hand yet another piece of ammo to 'climate optimists' who often cite often rather loose science and editorial, especially when comparisons are made with historical records, or when it ends up very cold somewhere.
I simply could not let pass a continued notion coming across that I, as a member of the public, am apparently very happy with our Dear Leader's performance so far, or indeed upon the reporting on it.
I simply could not believe a News 24 report the other night, which was the first in as long as I could recall that involved our PM having an opinion, when the reporter seemed to be parroting a press relase, and casting an amazingly glow on the man's character based on the subjective belief of the reporter. I do not think it is an objective newsperson's' job to say how calm and confident a politcal indivdual is, or how genuine and honest his beliefs. This was a character endorsement too far in my view.
However, the main reason for my post is a comment made by the host regarding the fact we are enjoying some unseasonably warm weather that is described as showing Global Warming in action.
Just watched the slot with Peter Mandelson, where the competencies of our PM were raised. With all the huge issues swirling about us I can of late recall no peep from him, bar a glowing mention the other day by a BBC reporter who positively misted up at Mr. Brown's common person empathy via his deep interest in... football.
ps: Andrew, when the weather is unseasonably nice, if you have to come up with a reason it might be better to refer to the possible explanation as climate change rather than global warming. Otherwise you may hand yet another piece of ammo to 'climate optimists' who often cite often rather loose science and editorial, especially when comparisons are made with historical records, or when it ends up very cold somewhere.
Voyages of discovery
Amazing what leads to what.
I was scoping one of my many sources of stuff, and came across this from SHARKRIDE: A retail experience with negative externalities minimized and reflected in the labeling and pricing.
Now I can't say the headline did a lot for me, or indeed the cause of bringing the e-word to the near-indifferent masses, but it was worth persevering.
And I did pop in a plug, as it seems there may be guys, like Bob, who 'know people'.
I have to say I rather stumbled on the, er, ‘negative ex-thingies’. But a nice share, ta.
For any, like Bob, interested in mitigating efforts via design, may I point you at http://www.junkk.com, which tries to matchmake those with ideas for second uses with those keen not to throw stuff away if not necessary.
But I have to agree that the more potent notion is building this in from the off. If any are in the UK in March there is a show at the NEC called Innovative Packaging, with a sub-section called EcoPack, at which I am exhibiting (a bottle/jar cap re:evolutionary design called RE:tie) and also speaking on the joys of re:use!
However there was, in the words of Yoda, 'one more'. And that was the little gizmo called Snapshot, which looks a well nifty effort to, as the name suggests, give folk a thumbnail of your site.
I was scoping one of my many sources of stuff, and came across this from SHARKRIDE: A retail experience with negative externalities minimized and reflected in the labeling and pricing.
Now I can't say the headline did a lot for me, or indeed the cause of bringing the e-word to the near-indifferent masses, but it was worth persevering.
And I did pop in a plug, as it seems there may be guys, like Bob, who 'know people'.
I have to say I rather stumbled on the, er, ‘negative ex-thingies’. But a nice share, ta.
For any, like Bob, interested in mitigating efforts via design, may I point you at http://www.junkk.com, which tries to matchmake those with ideas for second uses with those keen not to throw stuff away if not necessary.
But I have to agree that the more potent notion is building this in from the off. If any are in the UK in March there is a show at the NEC called Innovative Packaging, with a sub-section called EcoPack, at which I am exhibiting (a bottle/jar cap re:evolutionary design called RE:tie) and also speaking on the joys of re:use!
However there was, in the words of Yoda, 'one more'. And that was the little gizmo called Snapshot, which looks a well nifty effort to, as the name suggests, give folk a thumbnail of your site.
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Edit, dit, it... it isn't what you thought it was
For reasons that will soon become clear, I am highly sensitive to the accuracy of what gets served up to us by our publishers and broadcasters.
Especially when it comes to matters of 'fact', but also when subjective agendas and techniques get introduced that can at best steer the way they are viewed with subjective enhancements, or at worst plain be fiddled to fit.
And all to often it seems to get explained away airily by all sorts of excuses that simply are not good enough, with a total lack of tangible accountability or consequence to at least have some incentive not to play fast and loose again.... and again.
Worse, there seem now to be justifications based on what would once be inexcusable, simply because 'everyone does it', or the need to enhance reality to make things more 'entertaining'.
Just now I was one of the few in the nation up early enough to watch the BBC's weekly, meekly 'mea culpa' programme, Newswatch. The one where they atone in 5 minutes in a dead air slot for things that have gone out in prime time. With a successive or arrogant, defensive journalists and/or editors who are wheeled on to say they don't really see what the fuss is about.
And today my jaw was on the floor. And it was thanks to the actual footage shown, so credit to the Newswatch Editors. Basically there was a BBC TV news slot involving an ex-army chap making a comment about some issue, but whose words were then lifted and dumped elsewhere as some kind of response to a totally different story on a BBC Radio item.
Whilst grudgingly accepting the error, the morning's flak absorber airily dismissed it based on a variety of reasons that were certainly not excuses, and which we are hearing waaaay to often of late, and will doubtless continue to do for ever more unless addressed PDQ. Lack of time. Lack of money. Lack of trained staff. Ooops. This from what is meant to be a premier news organization with tens of thousands of trained bodies, funded by £3.5B of licence fee payers' money. Not blooming good enough!
There is now an all too prevalent notion that chunks of content can be used and abused to strip down and reassemble in the edit suite whatever you fancy for whatever your reasons, with truth, context and/or accuracy going out of the window so long as it makes for a 'good' story!
And they don't seem very interested in dealing with it at all, much less putting anything right, preferring to work on the (probably accurate) basis that if you leave it long enough it will all blow over.
Take this from the other day, where a possible ill-advised comment by a reporter was raised on the Newsnight blog. All I wanted, and at time of writing still want to know, is what she actually said:
1. At 08:33 PM on 06 Feb 2008, - Ms Kay made a clear statement in which she said 'thank god the Democrats have won Arkansas', she then tried to backtrack on her comment but the damage was done.
3. At 10:29 PM on 06 Feb 2008, - I didn't notice that last night and I have just re-watched it and didn't notice it then
9. At 05:34 PM on 07 Feb 2008, - May we have the 'purple box' official facts of what this reporter Ms. Kay did or did not say soon, please?
Any time you are ready. For the benefit of those who still like to weigh issues based on objective information.
There seem to be a bunch of 4th formers now in senior editorial positions more than happy to make snitty, silly rebuttals elsewhere, but on issues of cold, hard, key matters of fact they seem to suddenly scoot off elsewhere to throw their toys out of other prams.
Especially when it comes to matters of 'fact', but also when subjective agendas and techniques get introduced that can at best steer the way they are viewed with subjective enhancements, or at worst plain be fiddled to fit.
And all to often it seems to get explained away airily by all sorts of excuses that simply are not good enough, with a total lack of tangible accountability or consequence to at least have some incentive not to play fast and loose again.... and again.
Worse, there seem now to be justifications based on what would once be inexcusable, simply because 'everyone does it', or the need to enhance reality to make things more 'entertaining'.
Just now I was one of the few in the nation up early enough to watch the BBC's weekly, meekly 'mea culpa' programme, Newswatch. The one where they atone in 5 minutes in a dead air slot for things that have gone out in prime time. With a successive or arrogant, defensive journalists and/or editors who are wheeled on to say they don't really see what the fuss is about.
And today my jaw was on the floor. And it was thanks to the actual footage shown, so credit to the Newswatch Editors. Basically there was a BBC TV news slot involving an ex-army chap making a comment about some issue, but whose words were then lifted and dumped elsewhere as some kind of response to a totally different story on a BBC Radio item.
Whilst grudgingly accepting the error, the morning's flak absorber airily dismissed it based on a variety of reasons that were certainly not excuses, and which we are hearing waaaay to often of late, and will doubtless continue to do for ever more unless addressed PDQ. Lack of time. Lack of money. Lack of trained staff. Ooops. This from what is meant to be a premier news organization with tens of thousands of trained bodies, funded by £3.5B of licence fee payers' money. Not blooming good enough!
There is now an all too prevalent notion that chunks of content can be used and abused to strip down and reassemble in the edit suite whatever you fancy for whatever your reasons, with truth, context and/or accuracy going out of the window so long as it makes for a 'good' story!
And they don't seem very interested in dealing with it at all, much less putting anything right, preferring to work on the (probably accurate) basis that if you leave it long enough it will all blow over.
Take this from the other day, where a possible ill-advised comment by a reporter was raised on the Newsnight blog. All I wanted, and at time of writing still want to know, is what she actually said:
1. At 08:33 PM on 06 Feb 2008, - Ms Kay made a clear statement in which she said 'thank god the Democrats have won Arkansas', she then tried to backtrack on her comment but the damage was done.
3. At 10:29 PM on 06 Feb 2008, - I didn't notice that last night and I have just re-watched it and didn't notice it then
9. At 05:34 PM on 07 Feb 2008, - May we have the 'purple box' official facts of what this reporter Ms. Kay did or did not say soon, please?
Any time you are ready. For the benefit of those who still like to weigh issues based on objective information.
There seem to be a bunch of 4th formers now in senior editorial positions more than happy to make snitty, silly rebuttals elsewhere, but on issues of cold, hard, key matters of fact they seem to suddenly scoot off elsewhere to throw their toys out of other prams.
Friday, February 08, 2008
'I got wet 'cos it was raining' shock!
I'm probably setting myself up for a fall here, but this made me giggle (and at this time on a Friday you need to): Yell Group blames reduced advertiser budgets for revenue drop
Thing is, like the mighty Junkk.com publishing empire (and indeed many commercial entities), their main product seems (to me at least) to be, well, dependent on clients buying their stuff.
So if the clients buy less, then one presumes revenue will follow.
I know it could be a bunch of other stuff, like the CFO running off with the Xmas petty cash, but it just seemed an odd way to put it. Maybe saying such stuff in this way is why they get the big bucks.
Thing is, like the mighty Junkk.com publishing empire (and indeed many commercial entities), their main product seems (to me at least) to be, well, dependent on clients buying their stuff.
So if the clients buy less, then one presumes revenue will follow.
I know it could be a bunch of other stuff, like the CFO running off with the Xmas petty cash, but it just seemed an odd way to put it. Maybe saying such stuff in this way is why they get the big bucks.
More facts, figures and statistics!
Yet another set of facts and figures that may be open to question.
Addendum below. Post redated from 02/02/08 accordingly.
I spotted the gov's official CO2 emission figures the other day and thought that as the supposed reduction was so small, it was hardly worth commenting on. However, as reported by Channel 4, some green campaigners claim the figures are 'misleading', especially as they "ignore emissions from international flights, which are increasing."
In fact, they reckon that if you add in the international flights factor, the gov's figure would show a 5.5% year on year INCREASE in CO2 emissions.
Errrm ....... just who the hell are we supposed to believe?
We are simply left in an unknowing dilemma when facts, figures and statistics are massaged to suit a particular argument, as we have already commented on before.
ADDENDUM (Junkk Male) - Now here's a useful thing. A little effort of C4's I subscribed to only recently, called Fact Check. And looky here: FactCheck: have UK emissions really gone down? Neither hyped up nor spun down? I think they're being generous.
ps; And as the typo king I'm one to talk, but have to love their spelling of 'largerly'
Addendum below. Post redated from 02/02/08 accordingly.
I spotted the gov's official CO2 emission figures the other day and thought that as the supposed reduction was so small, it was hardly worth commenting on. However, as reported by Channel 4, some green campaigners claim the figures are 'misleading', especially as they "ignore emissions from international flights, which are increasing."
In fact, they reckon that if you add in the international flights factor, the gov's figure would show a 5.5% year on year INCREASE in CO2 emissions.
Errrm ....... just who the hell are we supposed to believe?
We are simply left in an unknowing dilemma when facts, figures and statistics are massaged to suit a particular argument, as we have already commented on before.
ADDENDUM (Junkk Male) - Now here's a useful thing. A little effort of C4's I subscribed to only recently, called Fact Check. And looky here: FactCheck: have UK emissions really gone down? Neither hyped up nor spun down? I think they're being generous.
ps; And as the typo king I'm one to talk, but have to love their spelling of 'largerly'
Tears in me eyes
From Greenbang - Gordon Brown’s nightmare
Maybe there is a chance that people might get interested in politics again!
What amazed me was the smiles I saw and laughs I heard from t'other side!
On a totally... well almost related topic, I have often found in environmental legislation, and reporting of same, that green and Brown keep trying to be brought together.
But the result seems to be a rather unappealing fudge.
Maybe there is a chance that people might get interested in politics again!
What amazed me was the smiles I saw and laughs I heard from t'other side!
On a totally... well almost related topic, I have often found in environmental legislation, and reporting of same, that green and Brown keep trying to be brought together.
But the result seems to be a rather unappealing fudge.
How does he do it?
Now I know he is reading my blog!After all the fun and games I have been moaning about these last few days, dealing with funders and VCs and the like, and not being very good at making up 'projections' that are in fact wild guesses, but po-faced stating them as done deals... this is who gets the money.
Well, there's a thing
Marketers warned against making false eco-claims
From Mad - Companies trying to ‘out-green’ each other in the battle for consumers’ hearts and minds are creating a potentially dangerous minefield for marketers, warns a new study from Getty Images.
Getty, which specialises in the creation and distribution of visual images, has launched its latest MAP (What Makes ...
Want to read more? If you do, you can, and it's free. But it's a trial. Here.
I think I've seen enough to get the message. Think is, have the... 'companies'.
ADDENDUM - polar-bears-fail-to-give-right-message - the full-er, story. So see, it pays to know folk who know folk
From Mad - Companies trying to ‘out-green’ each other in the battle for consumers’ hearts and minds are creating a potentially dangerous minefield for marketers, warns a new study from Getty Images.
Getty, which specialises in the creation and distribution of visual images, has launched its latest MAP (What Makes ...
Want to read more? If you do, you can, and it's free. But it's a trial. Here.
I think I've seen enough to get the message. Think is, have the... 'companies'.
ADDENDUM - polar-bears-fail-to-give-right-message - the full-er, story. So see, it pays to know folk who know folk
Just look at the blogger label below
Life as low-carbon man
I say no more.
Well, other than to add it does keep luvvies in Fleet Street and Islington occupied. Plus me:)
Shame we can't run things on 'awareness', especially of the misguided kind.
I say no more.
Well, other than to add it does keep luvvies in Fleet Street and Islington occupied. Plus me:)
Shame we can't run things on 'awareness', especially of the misguided kind.
Plugging away!
When it comes to doing good by Gaia, glory is good, but I'm always keen to up the ante to actaul, tangibel re:wards: The glory of glass recycling
In the spirit of ‘every little helps’, and acknowledging the minute (though still relevant) extra it may contribute, let's not also forget re:use, too!
Not so great for helping meet targets, but often a lower energy option... and a highly self-rewarding one!
Take this for example, a stunning lamp design made from Perrier bottles:
http://www.junkk.com/newsarticle.asp?slevel=0z608&parent_id=608&renleewtsapf=97
Inspired by Jason, I have a few more modest projects underway. One is a shaving mirror surround that is awaiting the dozen Fahrenheit after shave bottles I have almost accrued in the last several years (I knew I'd find a use one day! However you may find your local Boots may be able to speed things up with discarded testers), a transparent wall section from 1l Lambs Navy Rum hexagonal bottles, and a solar-powered driveway buried lawn edge night landing system covered with wine bottles.
Still trying to figure what to do with the several thousand other varieties now spilling into the living room which the missus is none to happy about.
Any ideas?
Actually, I forgot to mention I am also looking for some on pledge caps (the cans are a no-no, being pressurised).
In the spirit of ‘every little helps’, and acknowledging the minute (though still relevant) extra it may contribute, let's not also forget re:use, too!
Not so great for helping meet targets, but often a lower energy option... and a highly self-rewarding one!
Take this for example, a stunning lamp design made from Perrier bottles:
http://www.junkk.com/newsarticle.asp?slevel=0z608&parent_id=608&renleewtsapf=97
Inspired by Jason, I have a few more modest projects underway. One is a shaving mirror surround that is awaiting the dozen Fahrenheit after shave bottles I have almost accrued in the last several years (I knew I'd find a use one day! However you may find your local Boots may be able to speed things up with discarded testers), a transparent wall section from 1l Lambs Navy Rum hexagonal bottles, and a solar-powered driveway buried lawn edge night landing system covered with wine bottles.
Still trying to figure what to do with the several thousand other varieties now spilling into the living room which the missus is none to happy about.
Any ideas?
Actually, I forgot to mention I am also looking for some on pledge caps (the cans are a no-no, being pressurised).
Could ya? Would ya?.... Should ya?
Thanks to being told by the missus to get back to the day job, I have of late been attending a welter of networking events.
More abbreviations than you could throw a spellcheck at (still busted, eh, Blogger?), there are only so many 'Full Englishes' or personal coaches and aloe vera sales ladies I can afford, both financially and psychologically.
But I have noticed something.
At three recent events, the near obligatory mortgage broker/IFA has stood up and said ''What if I said I could wipe out your mortgage obligation? Would you be interested?'.
It would appear that there is the potential for some bit of legal jiggery-pokery to do just that.
I don't know the full details, because those making the pitch suddenly got all vague, but this is not compo for mis-selling, more a bit of 'no-win, no-fee' financial ambulance chasing based on no actual wrong-doing, but simply poor contract wording.
So the issue is not so much 'could', which it may well be possible to, or 'would', which it seems many might. But what about 'should'? This does rather strike me as a short-term pyramid at best, which will profit some but damage the majority, from the rates of those paying now, to the chances of those to come in getting a good deal.
So I said so. And I was pleasantly surprised to find the room agreed with me. Now it may be this is not being explained very well, but as it stands it's looking like the next 'dodge' from an already bizarre sector that I hope will get sorted... quick.
What's this to do with matters eco? Not a lot. But I am minded of the time a very big multi-national got a few £M from a very big quango to help them cut the size, and hence costs of making their commercial product.
If it's there for the taking, why not grab it? But really, and ignoring the more pressing question of the responbility to the public of those doling out the dough, should they have done?
More abbreviations than you could throw a spellcheck at (still busted, eh, Blogger?), there are only so many 'Full Englishes' or personal coaches and aloe vera sales ladies I can afford, both financially and psychologically.
But I have noticed something.
At three recent events, the near obligatory mortgage broker/IFA has stood up and said ''What if I said I could wipe out your mortgage obligation? Would you be interested?'.
It would appear that there is the potential for some bit of legal jiggery-pokery to do just that.
I don't know the full details, because those making the pitch suddenly got all vague, but this is not compo for mis-selling, more a bit of 'no-win, no-fee' financial ambulance chasing based on no actual wrong-doing, but simply poor contract wording.
So the issue is not so much 'could', which it may well be possible to, or 'would', which it seems many might. But what about 'should'? This does rather strike me as a short-term pyramid at best, which will profit some but damage the majority, from the rates of those paying now, to the chances of those to come in getting a good deal.
So I said so. And I was pleasantly surprised to find the room agreed with me. Now it may be this is not being explained very well, but as it stands it's looking like the next 'dodge' from an already bizarre sector that I hope will get sorted... quick.
What's this to do with matters eco? Not a lot. But I am minded of the time a very big multi-national got a few £M from a very big quango to help them cut the size, and hence costs of making their commercial product.
If it's there for the taking, why not grab it? But really, and ignoring the more pressing question of the responbility to the public of those doling out the dough, should they have done?
Sticking your oar in
I've cut back a lot on stuff that flies around the e-ther via other media, and am especially dubious about sharing the welter of stories that involve research or scientists, but this is worth popping up: Biofuels make climate change worse, scientific study concludes
No 'may' or 'suggests' here. We have a 'make' and a 'concludes'. So I take more notice. And, though noting it is 'just' in a UK quality national, according to The Independent this is the '...first thorough scientific audit of a biofuel's carbon budget.'
And the words used subsequently are not minced: 'damning evidence' ... 'biggest environmental con-tricks' ... 'actually make global warming worse'.
Hold that last thought. enviROI anyone? I take no pleasure in this, but here we have a very telling example of what headlong rushes into 'anything green that must be good' can possibly lead to.
It is to be hoped that we can expect this salutory lesson be applied to ensure the real e-value of all manner of other green initiatives, from wind turbines... to simply banning plastic bags with no thought for the consequences of the alternatives (or lack of).
So I would wish government, activists... and media... would all learn to give pause before the leap on the green band, and/or banwagon as they too often do.
Indy - Michael McCarthy: 'Free lunch' that could cost the earth
Gaurdian - Biofuel farms make CO2 emissions worse
No 'may' or 'suggests' here. We have a 'make' and a 'concludes'. So I take more notice. And, though noting it is 'just' in a UK quality national, according to The Independent this is the '...first thorough scientific audit of a biofuel's carbon budget.'
And the words used subsequently are not minced: 'damning evidence' ... 'biggest environmental con-tricks' ... 'actually make global warming worse'.
Hold that last thought. enviROI anyone? I take no pleasure in this, but here we have a very telling example of what headlong rushes into 'anything green that must be good' can possibly lead to.
It is to be hoped that we can expect this salutory lesson be applied to ensure the real e-value of all manner of other green initiatives, from wind turbines... to simply banning plastic bags with no thought for the consequences of the alternatives (or lack of).
So I would wish government, activists... and media... would all learn to give pause before the leap on the green band, and/or banwagon as they too often do.
Indy - Michael McCarthy: 'Free lunch' that could cost the earth
Gaurdian - Biofuel farms make CO2 emissions worse
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Go Figure
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.
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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)