QUOTE OF THE DAY - Foot in mouth disease

Couldn't resist. Second today.

It's actually from a journalist, so shouldn't count, but I laughed out loud and must share.

It's from the Ch4 Snowmail news feed, discussing upcoming stories: 'Hillary Clinton seems to have lost contact with the truth, recounting a tale of how she dodged bullets in Bosnia heroically - until enterprising US hacks dug out the video footage and it was as deadly as Henley-on-Thames.'

Nasty place come nightfall, Henley. You could be mown down by a manic cyclist with no lights!

Seriously though, if this is proven true, one has to wonder what the mindset is of those who would aim, with some sense of succeeding, at ultimate power. And what we the peons might end up with should they get in.

But, like Tricky Dicky, the greater concern is not that they come up with this guff, but they think (especially in this day and age) that they won't get caught... out.

ADDENDUM -

Guardian - Clinton under fire - Looks like the facts are accurate. But this has to be worthy of 'Quote of the Day' if only it had anything to do with matters enviro (still creeps in on who seeks to lead):

'How can you say you "MISSPOKE" if you are READING the lines?

If Hillary is MISS POKE, does that make Bill MR POKE?'

Indy - When Hillary Clinton tells such obvious mistruths, she exposes herself as a fantasist

Telegraph - YouTube - Hilarious. This is one of those gunning for running the US, remember.

125 million migrants

That's the number calculated to leave the worst hit regions of South East Asia should global warming raise temperatures by 4C to 5C (the IPCC forecast), according to Greenpeace.

Looks like we might need to plan a few more 'eco-towns' then? (See the Red Flag post below)

CATEGORY - Wall of sLime

Hall of sHame = Wall of sLime - Not the nicest shade of green

nPower

Marketing Week - NEW - 'Irresponsible companies' face the Corporate Hall of Shame - Ahead of my time, me. Note why Toyota is in there, all you Prius owners.

Why am I not suprised? There'll be more. Count on it.

FP- 2/10/07

Bringing back the man with the red flag?

Sometimes you come across something which at first glance seems 'okaaaaayyyy' but with a deeper read is actually so badly thought out that it makes you think 'how on earth did they come up with that?'

This is one such, from the Telegraph over the Easter break.

"Speed limits of just 15 miles-per-hour are to be introduced on major roads in planned new towns across the country as part of an effort to reduce global warming."

Ok, so when the internal combustion engine is only efficient at reasonably high RPM speeds, then just how does this reduce global warming? See, driving at maximum 15mph, probably in 1st or 2nd gear in most vehicles, will dramatically increase fuel consumption (many vehicles at low revs will manage only about 10mpg), it will dramatically increase pollution (vehicles running at low revs emit more none-combusted fuel and waaaayyyy more CO2 (and even worse, carbon monoxide), not to mention the fact that increased journey times (well, in many, but obviously not all cases) would generally increase fuel consumption too.

But it's only proposed for new 'eco-towns', where everybody will be living within "within 400 yards of public transport stop and 800 yards from shops." Sorry, but without some amazingly high housing packing density, that sounds much more like a small village to me. Oh, just realised, most villages no longer have public transport, pubs or shops now anyway, do they?

Despite being proposed for the new 'eco-villages' [sorry, 'towns'] only, it has, of course, brought the usual mass howls of protest and declarations of lunacy from the majority of posters. If, (and it really is a big if), the public transport system is planned, put into place and operated, correctly, it might just work. If not, then it will, without doubt, create more environmental pollution.

But then, not much that our Gov puts into place seems to ever work out too well; so what are the chances of these 'eco-towns' schemes being a success? I'm not overtly optimistic.

Public Doomains

I've about had it with storms in teacups being cranked out almost hourly by a self-serving nanny and 24/7 news culture that needs to talk about something new every two seconds.

Take this: Call for ban on employers searching social networking sites

A ban on 'someone' searching for something (or 'someone' else) via information is online in the public domain? How daft is that?

It's getting so a raft of NGOs, quangos, government departments and most of today's media... certainly BBC Breakfast News... would collapse for lack of content without a call to get knickers in a twist over, and then an attempt to ban something. Followed by spirited debates all round involving 'experts' that serve only to drive ratings. Quite a lucrative industry, and one set to grow even more in the future, I suspect.

I just have to agree with Johnny R... how exactly would this WORK... IN PRACTICE? It is, by almost any measure, impossible to police. While I am sure a raft of well-funded do-gooders have decided anti-ageist hiring practices are now neatly sorted and filed under 'Job Done' via EU box-ticking rules, the reality is a bit different. So yet again the process is all that matters, with the result irrelevant. At least in this case there is some merit in the legislation, and a slim chance of it being policed.

I am not saying that many hiring processes and practices may be anything from flawed to venal, and need to be discussed, but such credence to calls for things that are frankly impossible seem essentially pointless, at least in the po-faced forms the original PR gets issued.

'Unacceptable practice'? Bless. This needs referring to the Ministry of Dim Views Being Taken, which is now hiring all the talents from Board to Local Officer level.

QUOTE OF THE DAY - Mouths of Babes

Just watching the tail end of a few hours of BBC Breakfast News, and one thread throughout has been a segment on escalating kids' party expenses.

I had to laugh that they were at one West London yummie-mummy, luvvie event (the Beeb's only source of what is happening in the UK, it seems) that was 'tackling this issue'... with a 'kids party coordinator'. Save £5 a head on the party bag, but blow the saving on someone who will charge to advise you on how to be a parent? Hmmn.

Anyway, all morning the wee moppets have been shown making Arts & Crafts quietly and diligently, which impressed me no end.

Then things kind of went the shape of a pear.

Having served up this picture of back-to-basics idyll, the reporter made the boo-boo of setting us up for some propaganda.

'So, Fifi Moonshine, which do you now prefer.... making all this lovely stuff or being driven around in a big, nasty stretch limo?'.

Cue cute , shy little smile... 'The limo!"

'Not the answer I was looking for,' our rueful reporter suggests.

Quite. But an interesting insight into what we are fed. Guys, I am all for helping shape a return to a more 'eco-in all its forms' way of life, but not when served up by a rich set of hypsters like our national broadcaster and their speed-dial rent a mob of compliant 'average' folk from Fulham. Thank heavens for that lovely kid. At least she was honest.

Now the big thing is to figure out a way to persuade kids like her that there is something as fun as a limo ride. And then share that.

Some can need telling where to stick it.

Funny old world. Week before last I shared in my local paper a new place I happened across to get rid of cartons. The following week someone wrote in to suggest that I had it wrong as it wasn't in the right place.

For all the good it will do (some do get a critical bit betwixt their teeth no matter what - I got the feeling they felt I was the one in charge), I have tried to clarify:

While I share Mrs. X's frustration with the lack of a coherent national waste policy, extending from logistics to communications, especially as it dribbles piecemeal down to a ready, willing and keen to engage public from central and/or via local government, perhaps it is often best to celebrate that something gets done, if poorly, rather than nothing at all.

While I feel 'honoured' might be going a tad far, and as one who still struggles what to do usefully with Tetrapaks, in sharing the new facility's existence I was simply happy to find that, at last, there was an option now available for their recycling at least; one which I was not aware of.

But of course, having moved from what to do with them, we end up with where. I guess this can create as much spirited discussion in the positive as say, the location of an energy-from-waste facility can in the negative. If 90% [interesting to ponder how the writer arrived at this stat] of those arriving at Red Meadow to recycle do so by car, and solely for this purpose, then that is more than unfortunate. However if they park there to go swimming or, as do I, to walk through en route to town, then I feel the existence of a new means to get rid of more waste in a selective manner was still worth sharing.

Agreed, Station Approach is another good location (though I'd be more likely on a dedicated car-borne trip to go there, showing that what's good for one may not always be so for another [what's the opposite of a NIMBY?]), and if it does not enjoy a similar option that is a pity.

Is it run by the same folk? In fact this has got me to wondering about the sheer number of diverse entities, with targets to meet and quotas to fill (plus bonuses for doing so), who are actually doing what, where... and to how good an actual enviROI (a measure of return on investment to the environment in genuine reduced greenhouse gas emission terms that I coined and apply) all over our fair county and land. One often just has to trust that those tasked to do so, be it by the EU, ministerial desire or whatever, are actually doing so in the right way, for the right reasons.

Frankly a heavy steel skip to haul 90% fresh air in 1 litre card skins on a large diesel truck doesn't seem the best wherever it may be located, especially without knowing the distance to reprocessing. But I guess one tries to seek the positives. So until there is some trustworthy (!) single (!!) nationwide initiative (!!!) in place, communicated sensibly and clearly (! x a lot), so consumers can do their bit in the best way (eg: drop offs by kerbside or only en route in a car; and rendered in a minimum volume form for maximum recylcate content in skip/container prior to shipping), I guess I'll just concern myself with telling any who care to listen about new ways to stick it, simply hoping it's a 'better way' to spare their rubbish going into a hole or up in smoke if it doesn't have to. Whilst continually lobbying those in power to improve the situation at every turn.

And I encourage all of us to do the same. Hence I, and I am sure such as Mrs. X, would value an official view of what’s out there, plus why and how ‘we’ can best do our bit in light of the major efforts to encourage us to ‘recycle’. It’s clear that is not quite enough.

Hey, it's Easter Monday. I'm on a break.

Weeeee...d!

No, not a piece on the WEEE Directive.

Actually, it's about pots... plant pots.

I just watched a BBC News piece about the things, and it stuck a chord. Especially as I have hundreds in the garden cluttering things up.

Apparently there are 500 million made, and chucked away to landfill, a year.

So moves are afoot to recycle them.

Well, by a few isolated, and I bet uncoordinated by officialdom, places.

The piece mentioned garden centres Wyevale, and also recyclers Linpac. I have emailed the former for more details, and the latter don't have an email on their website, oddly.

And having been told to check your local area before heading off (wisely), I now head to the dire BBC website to see if they actually make it easy to DO what they SAY. It is a major beef of mine that they broadcast such stuff but often make it difficult to find out any more to act on their brief green pieces' advocacy.

Eggsessive Packaging

Somewhere out there is a happy medium. And I don't mean a carny tarot reader who has hit the cooking sherry.

In the sweet (as in, 'Ah , bless') corner, see that Easter Egg packaging? That is just one of the two bought by my sons for each other this day. It's just one, because both would not fit on my mini infinity cove.

The eggs would have, of course. That is, if they had lasted the milliseconds it took the boys to wolf 'em down. But the packaging... all of it... lingers on. At least until I can get to the recycling skips next week. Cardboard in the one and, now, I wonder if the plastic goes in the 'acceptable' bin?

Thing is, I don't want to be a grinch. So I do see some reason, if not great merit, in certain packaging, if purely in terms of presentation and design. Which is why I ended up in a disagreement with Norman Baker MP, actually a usually fine and worthy example of the Westminster crew, over his wielding of the word 'necessary', as in 'un' or 'not'.

But there's the thing. At what point do we drift from 'necessary' to 'a bit over the top but it's a special occasion' to 'do what... that's just plain daft!'.

The answer has to be in there. As I look at what the boys paid for I'd say I can at least peg one end of the scale. As to the other, well, there is some need for protection when you're talking 2mm of brittle chocolate surrounding 1/2 a litre of fresh air, and I'm not sure a wafer of foil will cut it in the rucksack cycling home from school. And there is the whole 'ta-da!' wrapping thing for Granny. A paper bag of chocolate-covered raisins doesn't have quite the same 'You're special' pizazz.

Already I can see and hear the media girding their loins for the next 'we're outraged' ban-wagon, which will doubtless involve being sent a free eco-egg by courier for just £4.95 to cover p&p (and find ourselves on the subscription DM list), and that means some pol will perk up and decide this needs their attention rather than something serious others might be addressing and hence won't get 'em noticed - plus press releases all round from their offices - as the whole energy/emissions thing will be solved by focusing on the next 0.0001% actual enviROI-significant thing.

Personally I'd prefer market forces to work it out. I sat the boys down and laid out the pocket money they'd blown on these efforts. Then I put the amount of chocolate they'd got (in CDM bar form) in the egg for the money, followed by the amount they'd have got in CDM-bar form in a CDM bar.

Plus I not so subtly highlighted the pile of cr*p the former had come in by way of debris.

Thing is, despite all the enviro-classes in the school curriculum and every BBC Breakfast News propaganda-fest they've been exposed to since birth, plus what Dad sort of does for a living, they still rather liked the fun of the egg. So maybe another crushing legislative imposition is the way to go. Not sure that this will get 'em onside, though.

But by way of compromise we are going to try and find a second use for the packaging now.

I'll let you know if we do, but can't say I'm that optimistic in this case.

Happy hols by the way.

A matter of principle

If only Gordon Brown could drive

It's a shame that the subsequent thread posts show the polarisation such blog posts inspire, and which often render these things such a trial.

I have to say I have much sympathy with the basic thrust of this piece, though not specifically or restricted to driving, and its costs per se.

It just the worrying trend of quite significant decisions or, more often, impositions, being made on many by a few almost totally isolated from the actual realities and/or consequences of them.

Extending the automotive motif, beyond chauffeured ministers and taxi-fare redeemed Mayors, there is also the simple fact of the London-centricity of it all.

Simply put, you really don't need to use your car as much there, and certainly not to get to work. Ignoring the situation elsewhere, by politician, activist and even media, is positively divisive. The latest 'green' measures have done nothing to support more economical motoring options, or encourage any decent enviROI moves, and merely added a swingeing additional tax burden to those struggling to cope already with all the other costs imposed to pay for index-linked salaries and pensions.

Semantic Antics

Again the plastic bag issue rears its head on the BBC, but in so doing rather highlights another 'Two 'E's' issue, this time Ecology vs. Environment.

I was moved to request that this dilemma at least be better addressed:

I see the BBC again plugging the notion that celebs buying designer reuseables at 'only ' £5 a pop is the best 'awareness' way to be greener.

Having done the free commercial for the luvvie brigade's profits, on a more pragmatic level we have the reporter standing in Oxford Street. But then we get into semantics. He is bang on when he says that retailers are responding to 'solve' the 'ecological' problem with... paper bags. No choking a turtle there.

However, I'd be keen for the national news broadcaster to inform me as to the 'environmental' impact of this switch...

I believe the greenhouse gas consequences of this option might be of relevance in the mix.

You're 'aving a larf'

My view on this From Emo to Ego from Grist about another celeb awareness... er.. effort

'What will be the fallout?', they ask.

Let's see...

'...the band will board a private jet...' as the first line in the PR seems to set it up.

Kinda compounded, if explained by '...MTV News will be with the band every step of the way..'

But it's OK, because 'This certainly outdoes last February's FOB stunt, Infinity Flight 206...'

Boggling the mind, mind, is that this is billed as '..teaming up with Greenpeace for the concert, in the hopes of raising awareness about global warming.'

Know what? I think folk may be pretty 'aware' about Probably Man Worsened Climate Change (Global warming is, so like, last year... if not plain inaccurate) by now, but celebs and eco-elites and rating-priority media swanning about in jets to do it all may well be the bigger message that gets sent around the world, and hence again give cause to ponder the value of many self-appointed messengers. And those who give them page space. Like us. Funny old word, eh?

What next? Hey, I have an idea! Leonardo, Tamsin, Madge et Al can hook up with Top Gear and fly (commecial of course) their Priuses to the Antarctic for a Celebrity Destruction Derby!

This is getting so bizarre I figure there is method to this madness, but it's so subtle I am missing it.

Branson bites back!

I missed this from Wednesday's Guardian CIF - a response from Richard Branson to the sniping comments made by Willie Walsh, CEO of British Airways.

Though he makes his points well, and they are actually DOING something (questionable as it may be), and I do agree with him that looking for viable (important key word) alternative fuels has to be done, there are some quite scathing posts in response.

New build or refurb?

Now it seems to me to be reasonable common sense that the refurb and renovation (i.e. Re:Use) of any building ought to be less costly to the planet than building new from scratch, but, until this from Inside Housing, reporting on research undertaken by the Empty Homes Agency,I'd never seen any actual figures.

The CO2 "produced to build a new home is 4.5 times that needed to refurbish a long-term empty home".

"the carbon impact of the government's new homes target could be cut by 10 million tonnes if part of it was met by reusing and upgrading England's 288,000 long-term empty homes."

Sounds like a pretty reasonable win-win situation to me, but, despite this evidence, I really don't see our Gov reviewing its 'build - build - build' (even on flood plains) policy, do you?

Food shortages WILL happen

Now we've commented on this very blog about the shrinkage of glaciers around the planet before, and pointed out some of the doom and gloom food shortage, mass migration and war scenarios that many, with perhaps more Malthusian mentalities, are predicting.

But this from the New Scientist makes for quite grim reading, and it does not hedge its bets; even the headline uses that key word WILL. Not 'could' or 'might' or 'potentially' or 'theoretically possible' but "Melting glaciers will trigger food shortages".

Quite depressing. But will anybody take note?

A foot! Let's see if we can hit it!

Oops! Govt fails to meet its sustainability targets

Can't help but feel the word 'again' might be missing here.

Targets. Gotta love 'em. Keep lots of folk in business setting them, assessing them and then explaining why they don't matter or rejigging the rules for another stab. Plus guys like us passing comment.

One thing... 'wasn’t you: it was government.'

Like many, I'd like to divorce me from t'other. But sadly, once such as the EU fines kick in for missing them I rather suspect it will be us who fork out.

Sad face again:(

Not so grand

If ever there was a reason to ponder reduction and/or insulation, this is it: Energy bills break £1,000 mark

For some, that means they are working almost a month in the year to cover this fundamental aspect of life.

Passionates, Dutifuls, Followers, Uninvolved.

Those are the four groupings of consumer types on a green adoption curve, according to research undertaken by Starcom MediaVest Group and reported in Marketing Week.

"Passionates, comprise 10% of the population and are highly motivated - the only group of people who regularly campaign, blog and boycott." - they also tend be be somewhat uncompromising.

"Dutifuls make up 24% of adults; they are enthusiastic without being political; they aspire to being greener and more ethical, often seeing it as a signifier of social status."

"Followers are the majority of the population at 41%. They tend to be more green than ethical and they feel that they ought to get more involved but are often not sure how to."

"The Uninvolved, 25% of the population, are more apathetic than actively anti-green, but have nevertheless formed a powerful set of barriers to adoption."

With such a wide and diverse set of consumer groups, no wonder it is so difficult to know just how to position any brand communication!

Well worth a browse.

CATEGORY - Media Wires

There are a variety of non-enviro but peripheral and relevant products and services I use in the cause of Junkk.com.

So as I learn, discover, fail or find out stuff maybe worth sharing, so I will pop it up.

Hence here is a (soon to be, as I am reminded) growing list of places to go to post a PR story that may get picked up.

These are some places journalists may go to find new content, and most are free.

Hey, you never know!

Daryl Wilcox Publishing - paid - useful free newsletters

Google news

Careful what you go 'a wanting..

A very interesting piece on packaging: Shoppers want less packaging

While much is in there (or the links), especially the inherent contradictions and cultural differences, I felt it worth asking for more to be spelled out.

As it pertains to an ongoing investigation I am conducting, and acknowledging the explanations in the piece above, what might make the packaging you feature in the picture overprotective?

In the face of the massive, negative-PR anti-packaging onslaughts, I am having trouble reconciling why the producers (in this case) or brands and/or retailers would still be going to the trouble and expense without good reason(s).

I am keen to find out what they might be.