I was away and hence missed the piece (more nanny nonsense), but here are the replies:
Rubber band harvest
For the rest, there is always... Junkk.com, and RE:tie.
Addendum:
Had to write to the BBC..
Regarding today's recycled 'news' item with, we are sure, a well-paid professional busy-body given airtime on a minor non-issue (rubber bands) at the expense of a bigger one (litter).
Regarding the bands, may we suggest folk just pick 'em up and reuse them.
As to sending them in piecemeal by post, while this may make for a nice story (and help a beleaguered Royal Mail's profits), it might not be the best use of planetary resources, so we'd be hard-pressed to see an eco-value at all.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
A quick, if not easy fix we can all agree on?
Spam 'uses as much power as 2.1m homes'
That's, ahem... US homes. Maybe Al Gore sized ones?
Or... 'More than 80% of the world's email traffic is now spam and the transmission and receipt of unwanted email gobbles up 33bn kilowatt-hours of electricity a year'
Seems to me that might be worth addressing over some other issues that trouble campaigners seeking a cause.
That's, ahem... US homes. Maybe Al Gore sized ones?
Or... 'More than 80% of the world's email traffic is now spam and the transmission and receipt of unwanted email gobbles up 33bn kilowatt-hours of electricity a year'
Seems to me that might be worth addressing over some other issues that trouble campaigners seeking a cause.
Good products need better messages
I bang on a lot about the message vs. the messengers.
Usually with an eyebrow cranked at the authors being the ideal choice to champion something green by being a tad less than solid once you scratch the surface.
Not in this case:
Good products need better messages
Gordon Brown (interview, 8 April) is right that we need a "green revolution", based on renewables, energy efficiency and clean coal, if we are to meet our carbon reduction targets by 2020. Capitalising on the UK's research base in renewable energy, low-carbon energy and demand reduction will lead to an economy that is more energy secure and fosters an industry with worldwide export potential.
Other European countries are already well ahead of the UK in implementing green energy industries, building what will surely be a major economic sector within decades.
To achieve this for the UK, we will need a stable and clearly defined policy environment as well as incentives to encourage investment. We will need a large increase in support for R&D and early-stage technological development of low-carbon sources of energy. And we will need to invest in the infrastructure technology which will enable our electricity system to make the most efficient use of new-generation technologies.
The UK engineering community is working together to signpost the pathway to a more resilient future economy for the UK. Key to this is a more joined-up government engineering strategy that drives towards a new, sustainable low-carbon economy while creating successful industries, skills and jobs.
David Brown, CEO, Institution of Chemical Engineers; Tom Foulkes, Director-General, Institution of Civil Engineers; Paul Jackson, CEO, The Engineering Technology Board; Robin McGill, IET Chief Executive; Stephen Tetlow, CEO, Institution of Mechanical Engineers; Keith Read, Chief Executive, Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology; Philip Greenish, CEO The Royal Academy of Engineering, London SW1
No matter how much I might applaud the sincerity and value of what is being penned here, I will be intrigued to see who, from Gordon Brown to the voting public, gets motivated by the words here.
Usually with an eyebrow cranked at the authors being the ideal choice to champion something green by being a tad less than solid once you scratch the surface.
Not in this case:
Good products need better messages
Gordon Brown (interview, 8 April) is right that we need a "green revolution", based on renewables, energy efficiency and clean coal, if we are to meet our carbon reduction targets by 2020. Capitalising on the UK's research base in renewable energy, low-carbon energy and demand reduction will lead to an economy that is more energy secure and fosters an industry with worldwide export potential.
Other European countries are already well ahead of the UK in implementing green energy industries, building what will surely be a major economic sector within decades.
To achieve this for the UK, we will need a stable and clearly defined policy environment as well as incentives to encourage investment. We will need a large increase in support for R&D and early-stage technological development of low-carbon sources of energy. And we will need to invest in the infrastructure technology which will enable our electricity system to make the most efficient use of new-generation technologies.
The UK engineering community is working together to signpost the pathway to a more resilient future economy for the UK. Key to this is a more joined-up government engineering strategy that drives towards a new, sustainable low-carbon economy while creating successful industries, skills and jobs.
David Brown, CEO, Institution of Chemical Engineers; Tom Foulkes, Director-General, Institution of Civil Engineers; Paul Jackson, CEO, The Engineering Technology Board; Robin McGill, IET Chief Executive; Stephen Tetlow, CEO, Institution of Mechanical Engineers; Keith Read, Chief Executive, Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology; Philip Greenish, CEO The Royal Academy of Engineering, London SW1
No matter how much I might applaud the sincerity and value of what is being penned here, I will be intrigued to see who, from Gordon Brown to the voting public, gets motivated by the words here.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Hmnnnn...
The environment is too important to be left to the green movement
I think I'll just keep on the rest of the day doing stuff to avoid waste.
I think I'll just keep on the rest of the day doing stuff to avoid waste.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Meanwhile, on a banana boat near you...
Let's talk context:
Health risks of shipping pollution have been 'underestimated'
One giant container ship can emit almost the same amount of cancer and asthma-causing chemicals as 50m cars, study finds..
...just 15 of the world's biggest ships may now emit as much pollution as all the world's 760m cars.
Ok, it's just a study, but...
Health risks of shipping pollution have been 'underestimated'
One giant container ship can emit almost the same amount of cancer and asthma-causing chemicals as 50m cars, study finds..
...just 15 of the world's biggest ships may now emit as much pollution as all the world's 760m cars.
Ok, it's just a study, but...
Well, he did ask.
I don't like excessively negative criticism, but in this case it was hard to find much to be positive about.
The previous effort, while flawed by a massive agenda overload and some rampant breaches of the principles of practicing what one preaches (or, in the case of the BBC, finger-wags), at least did have some information worth having.
This one, on the evidence of this piece... not so much.
The first Ethical Man film
And I felt the urge to explain why.
OK, I have given you my 17 minutes. Now for the 2 cents.
It's a mixture of questions and thoughts, the latter as requested.
First up, this is the first of how many? What for? To whom? Where and when? Here on the blog to show all the guys back in the USA who you met? What's the anticipated audience for all that has been consumed... with what intended message?
Top of line while fresh in mind, there seemed near zero by way of any information worth much. It was also hardly cutting edge documentary. How many of these have we seen before, and will get again? At what cost... to licence fee and planet? Lugging star and entourage and kit does not come cheap.
The original EM had some value; I learned a lot and got some nifty links. And why on earth would a (genuine) experiment in ways and results of trying to reduce GHG's on a personal level be bizarre?
Odd to mention the giving up flying, and then fly to the USA next. And then make a point about not flying whilst there (except back here when it was necessary).
This was billed as what America could teach us. I am struggling to think of one thing in this first piece that taught anyone anything, though there was a Brit telling some Americans how their lives are measured in Hershey bars. Looking at the audience I think that may have sunk in.
Whilst engagingly acknowledged, the whole asking folk what they thought of 'Global Warming' at every turn, during a blizzard, was... quaint. I thought it was now 'climate change', and in The Guardian even this is being deemed so last year before records stopped. And the BBC has a spotty record on reporting science at best.
Whilst obviously a very nice family, I fear the time with the Howards is time I will not get back. But I must say Dad's powered driveway shovel looked waaay cool. I'll get rid of the spade right away. Did it run on coal?
Because I think I did get the message that this is bad stuff, and the USA has lots more bad stuff than anyone. So President O's efforts in ditching their primary energy sources in favour of others will be an interesting one to watch. Environment vs. economy can be a tricky one. A bit like PM Brown's latest wheeze (frankly he spins so much on green issues each month we could run the National Grid on him) on making us all buy as many electric cars as we can is novel, without seeing certain ironies in steel mills cranking out more cars to run on a fuel produced, currently, how? And later on, how? And how distributed?
It was great to see that even in the snow you got a nice audience at the show, but let's get real. If Fox advertised an event with cameras in our town hall, half the town would turn up to get on the telly. Hope they thought it was worth it.
Without knowing where this is going, I can only hope that if I am to invest more time in these pieces, there will be something in there of more value to help me with making tough choices on climate-related issues, and better yet with proactive solutions for the future. Flying to the USA to make a telly show on high consumption Americans isn't really spinning my turbine. But I hope it was fun.
It's personal, and subjective, but I hope still polite and fair. And I really hope that it might make such as the BBC think a bit before concocting a trite TV show, with all that entails, and tries not only to sell it as something a lot more than it is, and in content serve the cause they claim to espouse so poorly. How, in any way, did this show 'save the world from climate change'?
There was also some response in the main blog, but I sense even linked from here a few did not actually watch the piece being promoted, which does rather beg the question as to who it was being made for. The ROI as a broadcaster would be as interesting as the enviROI.
The previous effort, while flawed by a massive agenda overload and some rampant breaches of the principles of practicing what one preaches (or, in the case of the BBC, finger-wags), at least did have some information worth having.
This one, on the evidence of this piece... not so much.
The first Ethical Man film
And I felt the urge to explain why.
OK, I have given you my 17 minutes. Now for the 2 cents.
It's a mixture of questions and thoughts, the latter as requested.
First up, this is the first of how many? What for? To whom? Where and when? Here on the blog to show all the guys back in the USA who you met? What's the anticipated audience for all that has been consumed... with what intended message?
Top of line while fresh in mind, there seemed near zero by way of any information worth much. It was also hardly cutting edge documentary. How many of these have we seen before, and will get again? At what cost... to licence fee and planet? Lugging star and entourage and kit does not come cheap.
The original EM had some value; I learned a lot and got some nifty links. And why on earth would a (genuine) experiment in ways and results of trying to reduce GHG's on a personal level be bizarre?
Odd to mention the giving up flying, and then fly to the USA next. And then make a point about not flying whilst there (except back here when it was necessary).
This was billed as what America could teach us. I am struggling to think of one thing in this first piece that taught anyone anything, though there was a Brit telling some Americans how their lives are measured in Hershey bars. Looking at the audience I think that may have sunk in.
Whilst engagingly acknowledged, the whole asking folk what they thought of 'Global Warming' at every turn, during a blizzard, was... quaint. I thought it was now 'climate change', and in The Guardian even this is being deemed so last year before records stopped. And the BBC has a spotty record on reporting science at best.
Whilst obviously a very nice family, I fear the time with the Howards is time I will not get back. But I must say Dad's powered driveway shovel looked waaay cool. I'll get rid of the spade right away. Did it run on coal?
Because I think I did get the message that this is bad stuff, and the USA has lots more bad stuff than anyone. So President O's efforts in ditching their primary energy sources in favour of others will be an interesting one to watch. Environment vs. economy can be a tricky one. A bit like PM Brown's latest wheeze (frankly he spins so much on green issues each month we could run the National Grid on him) on making us all buy as many electric cars as we can is novel, without seeing certain ironies in steel mills cranking out more cars to run on a fuel produced, currently, how? And later on, how? And how distributed?
It was great to see that even in the snow you got a nice audience at the show, but let's get real. If Fox advertised an event with cameras in our town hall, half the town would turn up to get on the telly. Hope they thought it was worth it.
Without knowing where this is going, I can only hope that if I am to invest more time in these pieces, there will be something in there of more value to help me with making tough choices on climate-related issues, and better yet with proactive solutions for the future. Flying to the USA to make a telly show on high consumption Americans isn't really spinning my turbine. But I hope it was fun.
It's personal, and subjective, but I hope still polite and fair. And I really hope that it might make such as the BBC think a bit before concocting a trite TV show, with all that entails, and tries not only to sell it as something a lot more than it is, and in content serve the cause they claim to espouse so poorly. How, in any way, did this show 'save the world from climate change'?
There was also some response in the main blog, but I sense even linked from here a few did not actually watch the piece being promoted, which does rather beg the question as to who it was being made for. The ROI as a broadcaster would be as interesting as the enviROI.
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Home out of the price range?
Greener homes are a no go
'..just anti-being forced into spending up to £40,000 to meet the 2016 standards and not getting a penny back for the effort.'
One presumes that there might be some if the money has added value in terms of operating costs, surely?
Maybe no one is yet very good at explaining what you pay now pays back over the years.
'..just anti-being forced into spending up to £40,000 to meet the 2016 standards and not getting a penny back for the effort.'
One presumes that there might be some if the money has added value in terms of operating costs, surely?
Maybe no one is yet very good at explaining what you pay now pays back over the years.
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Funny Old World
Just watching SKY news.
In a piece about vast cash injections to save the car industry, I just heard the reporter quote what I presume to be an attempt at mitigation, that some £600 M is to be provided... but will be ring-fenced for 'green initiatives'....
O....k. Already eyebrow-twitching, I am afraid they are now stuck to the ceiling with what came next: '... such as trying to make Range Rovers more fuel efficient.'
Let me get this straight; our money gets used to buy some bloc votes in the manufacturing heartlands, in the name of green, so some folk can swan about in a 2-ton 4x4 and feel a bit better about themselves?????!
Telegraph - NEW - Throwing the car industry a lifeline - And don't get me on scrappage..
Instead of me buying an '02 LPG when my clunker died, I should have held out for £2k to buy a brand new Beemer 735i? How's that help country or planet?
Guardian - NEW - Car industry budget boost: pros and cons
Guardian - NEW - Should Britain introduce a car scrappage scheme?
Sunday, April 05, 2009
Junkk washes greener?
I've shared them, and the story, before, but in the spirit of positivity and 'as one door closes...' I think it's worth doing so again.
You're looking at the Junkk.com 'brochure'.
Roughly lifesize, this little... very little... piece of printing was the result of an encounter with a passionate environmentalist, and has turned into one of our more successful promotional tools, especially in combo with the Vac:Sac (I get stopped and asked what it's all about... and produce a card. And, if I am lucky, the recipient does turn it into a passport-sized picture frame - mine is in its 4th year protecting the boys' images - that is also a wallet-borne promo for Junkk.com in everyone's pocket... especially when presenting said picture of loved ones and then, hopefully, asked about the frame).
Anyhoo, the first flyer outing was not so successful, an A5 card, and I paid the price. I was at some show and this bloke barrelled up waving it and demanded... 'Is this made from recycled paper!!!!?' Erk. I didn't know. I doubted it. As I had to get it done fast, and cheap. Not the ideal environment for the, um, ideal environment to be specified, waited for... or afforded. Especially when trying to share a whole stand of lovely reuse ideas to a bunch of folk now much more interested in this piece of paper being waved about.
So I determined to resolve this to avoid such confrontations. Hence the pocket picture frame came to be. And, months later, the guy did re-appear, and did again raise his voice, and ire, in challenge.
Only this time, mid-flow I quietly and politely (well, as you can) interrupted and said 'It's better than recyclable... it's reusable, which is even higher on the 're-hierarchy', and better for the planet'. The appreciation of the audience for this solution felt good. Oddly, the man in question seemed even angrier, but left, muttering. Can't please everyone, all of the time.
I was minded of the opportunities of aspects of this when reading a fellow eco-blogger's post the other day...
Ecover packaging - is it really recyclable? (where facilities exist, perhaps)
The key here is in the bracket, as a brand or retailer, while still a major part of the process, is still very much at the hands of our fragmented recycling collection and processing systems around the UK.
You can do all you can (as such as ecover and Innocent I truly believe are trying to do), but at the end of the day... not all that is green can be black or white. Or, in this case, make recyclable as easily in one county, or even town, as another (witness ours, where a great home kerbside/public space skip, segregated waste collection combo is being scrapped in favour of a single green wheelie that sends all your waste in a black plastic bag to a remote MRF to, one fears, produce box-ticking but possibly less than industry-desired recyclate. Hardly great for my kids' futures, and hence a real enviROI eyebrow-cranking target for me).
Far be it from me to 'defend' a brand that uses plastic, or indeed any other packaging, but I do tend to accept more than others that, in a modern, consumerist, growing population, time-poor, work-from-home separated, etc, etc, society, that some has to be inevitable, for logistics alone, and for the environment even, especially with protection issues. Hence I am more interested in and devote my time to uses, or rather resues, more than bans, though reductions in unnecessary areas are of course desirable.
And ecover, bless 'em, could hardly do more, though much of what they do get up to can get shared in a way that does bring them under perhaps more scrutiny than others. A higher standard and all that. But in a world where making things green often does add a cost penalty, and a cost penalty can lead to poorer competitiveness, especially on the shelves, so much of their CSR, from green-roofed factories to the actual contents of their products, does suggest going as an extra a mile (well, kilometer... they are based in Belgium I think) as is possible in a credit-crunchy era. Especially when I suspect all most now want, or are having to weigh up between pocket and planet, is whiter whites for the least money, rather than just the greenest ones.
But these things do need discussing, and debating, so I felt the urge to try at least to point out one area that was eyebrow cranked by one (the author), not answered by another (the ecover PR lady) but actually was in part addressed already(ecover and Junkk.com).
I won't repeat my reply (actually two now) as it's in the thread on the link, but I hope it shows a real attempt to see the merits of what can often two very polarised views - that of manufacturer and campaigner - and try to navigate to a positive compromise that can satisfy some (if not all), and lead to dialogues that can make for better future solutions.
Now, where is Tesco's number?
Friday, April 03, 2009
Every confusing bit helps a little bit?
Tesco trials packaging returns scheme
Of course, if more packaging was also designed for reuse, it wouldn't need to be left behind at the store, but might find new life elsewhere.
Dumped at the store, or dumped in the kitchen bin still means dumped, though with luck the store might have more idea on getting segregated waste back in a useful form to recyclers. Nice of them to do that work.
6 weeks is short, and it would be interesting to learn what in-store or local promo there is to advise and drive shoppers to work with it. And the two (area) stores question is valid.
And is it just cardboard? My area is already well served for that on both kerbside and local skips. What about plastics?
Of course, if more packaging was also designed for reuse, it wouldn't need to be left behind at the store, but might find new life elsewhere.
Dumped at the store, or dumped in the kitchen bin still means dumped, though with luck the store might have more idea on getting segregated waste back in a useful form to recyclers. Nice of them to do that work.
6 weeks is short, and it would be interesting to learn what in-store or local promo there is to advise and drive shoppers to work with it. And the two (area) stores question is valid.
And is it just cardboard? My area is already well served for that on both kerbside and local skips. What about plastics?
THE TWO E's... and a big 'O'
Just having my lunch watching Pres. Obama speaking live.
He is, no doubt about it, a class act.
And I write this as he still speaks. While I will soon need to get back to work.
Now, there's a thing. Why am I working? What on? With what consequence... short, middle and long term?
The bit I caught was about fellow workers, Indians, being helped out of poverty, such that they could all have... refrigerators.
Nothing wrong with that at all, but I must say that, even though he skirted the issue in passing, I am a little unclear how this noble aim can be rationalised with much that is advocated in the realms of climate change mitigation.
Seems to me the West is going to have pretty much not just slam on the brakes with its economies, but hit reverse, whilst this acceleration takes place elsewhere. Fridges do not get bought without consequences environmentally. They need to be made, and then new energy is then required to run them.
I'm not sure the population (hold that word in mind) of the USA using less a/c in their cars is quite going to do it.... even if the economic sell is made to that voting bloc... which I doubt.
The oratory is awesome, but so far the logic is escaping me. And while fine words are better than no words (I have no solution to offer, well, that can be printed here, but then I don't get the personal 747 and limo), but I really hope the guys with the smarts have thought this one through, especially if certain areas are deemed 'no-go' or 'exceptions'.
It will be interesting to see how the MSM spins this. I think he's possibly the best we've got, but that does not make him infallible.
Telegraph - Greener energy policies don't have to cost the earth - if only for that line. I've missed it.
Mail - O'Barmy meets completely barmy
Washington Times - Military strained by Obama trip
NY Times - The Words Have Changed, but Have the Policies?
He is, no doubt about it, a class act.
And I write this as he still speaks. While I will soon need to get back to work.
Now, there's a thing. Why am I working? What on? With what consequence... short, middle and long term?
The bit I caught was about fellow workers, Indians, being helped out of poverty, such that they could all have... refrigerators.
Nothing wrong with that at all, but I must say that, even though he skirted the issue in passing, I am a little unclear how this noble aim can be rationalised with much that is advocated in the realms of climate change mitigation.
Seems to me the West is going to have pretty much not just slam on the brakes with its economies, but hit reverse, whilst this acceleration takes place elsewhere. Fridges do not get bought without consequences environmentally. They need to be made, and then new energy is then required to run them.
I'm not sure the population (hold that word in mind) of the USA using less a/c in their cars is quite going to do it.... even if the economic sell is made to that voting bloc... which I doubt.
The oratory is awesome, but so far the logic is escaping me. And while fine words are better than no words (I have no solution to offer, well, that can be printed here, but then I don't get the personal 747 and limo), but I really hope the guys with the smarts have thought this one through, especially if certain areas are deemed 'no-go' or 'exceptions'.
It will be interesting to see how the MSM spins this. I think he's possibly the best we've got, but that does not make him infallible.
Telegraph - Greener energy policies don't have to cost the earth - if only for that line. I've missed it.
Mail - O'Barmy meets completely barmy
Washington Times - Military strained by Obama trip
NY Times - The Words Have Changed, but Have the Policies?
Do gooders. No bad thing these days.
I usually keep ad commentary over on my other blog, Bordello Ivory Tales.
However this does seem worthy of note more here:
Honda block books 'green' ad space on Saturday Guardian
Not to sure the Guardian's rivals will be plugging it quite as much, but there scale of the event is worthy of note. If not the ridiculous ad speek straight out of the press release.
My main interest is in the 'Do good' theme; one we at Junkk.com plug long, hard... and often. And endorse.
Not so sure 'An Inconvenient Truth' is quite the best bit of science documentary for Ch4 to associate itself with, as things have moved on a fair bit since then. Maybe they see it as 'balance' to 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'. I fear I view both more as 'Two wrongs make more ratings' . I am sure there are now later, better, ways to entertain and inform and persuade. Though, I still doubt any that don't fall down on one 'side' or other. And while saving the planet is a laudable aim, folk need to make money, so the new stuff needs to do the cinemas and DVDs for a few years, which is why we get the old stuff on TV now.
Let's see what the comments throw up. That's a lot of money, in one place, for, let's not forget, a car brand.
However this does seem worthy of note more here:
Honda block books 'green' ad space on Saturday Guardian
Not to sure the Guardian's rivals will be plugging it quite as much, but there scale of the event is worthy of note. If not the ridiculous ad speek straight out of the press release.
My main interest is in the 'Do good' theme; one we at Junkk.com plug long, hard... and often. And endorse.
Not so sure 'An Inconvenient Truth' is quite the best bit of science documentary for Ch4 to associate itself with, as things have moved on a fair bit since then. Maybe they see it as 'balance' to 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'. I fear I view both more as 'Two wrongs make more ratings' . I am sure there are now later, better, ways to entertain and inform and persuade. Though, I still doubt any that don't fall down on one 'side' or other. And while saving the planet is a laudable aim, folk need to make money, so the new stuff needs to do the cinemas and DVDs for a few years, which is why we get the old stuff on TV now.
Let's see what the comments throw up. That's a lot of money, in one place, for, let's not forget, a car brand.
A matter of degree
I love blogging... evidently.
It can be, and mostly is, a great experience, and usually a learning one.
However, just as Peter Parker found, with great power comes great responsibility.
And, often, sadly, challenges.
One is moderation, which is a very difficult line to walk. One which, if you are not careful, can lead to censorship, which is the gateway to objectivity going out the window, and bias and control coming in.
G20, Bonn and the climate of opinion
Not from the author, but I do find such suggestions creeping in these days, and feel the need to at the very least challenge the thinking. I worry about those who think they 'know' 'right' more than others can hold more sway than they deserve, simply by being vocal:
(I don't know if the technology allows it, but it would be good to impose a limit on the length and number of posts)
It exists, and has since time immemorial. The problem tends to come with the humans behind it who set and police the 'rules', and where their skill sets, influences and/or sympathies lie. So I am unsure how 'good' that would be.
While I agree that the blogosphere can get prone to 'distractions', trying to explain or debate science via Twitter-feeds is indeed a worthy discipline to encourage, and may be great for those seeking sound-bites, but may lead to incomplete and hence inaccurate posts. I think most blogs do have a limit anyway, and seem to work as a consequence.
As to number of posts, what if I agree? And suggest this should be the last on this issue? Shame you might not get to have any further opinion on that, at least in the same thread:) I also find that when the mods call a halt often leads to suspicions that an over-arching agenda is at play, and when things are not going in a favoured direction impositions can get applied. Not great for free and open debate.
I agree it can be frustrating, but on balance simply skipping over those that seem to be going in a poor direction still works best for me.
It can be, and mostly is, a great experience, and usually a learning one.
However, just as Peter Parker found, with great power comes great responsibility.
And, often, sadly, challenges.
One is moderation, which is a very difficult line to walk. One which, if you are not careful, can lead to censorship, which is the gateway to objectivity going out the window, and bias and control coming in.
G20, Bonn and the climate of opinion
Not from the author, but I do find such suggestions creeping in these days, and feel the need to at the very least challenge the thinking. I worry about those who think they 'know' 'right' more than others can hold more sway than they deserve, simply by being vocal:
(I don't know if the technology allows it, but it would be good to impose a limit on the length and number of posts)
It exists, and has since time immemorial. The problem tends to come with the humans behind it who set and police the 'rules', and where their skill sets, influences and/or sympathies lie. So I am unsure how 'good' that would be.
While I agree that the blogosphere can get prone to 'distractions', trying to explain or debate science via Twitter-feeds is indeed a worthy discipline to encourage, and may be great for those seeking sound-bites, but may lead to incomplete and hence inaccurate posts. I think most blogs do have a limit anyway, and seem to work as a consequence.
As to number of posts, what if I agree? And suggest this should be the last on this issue? Shame you might not get to have any further opinion on that, at least in the same thread:) I also find that when the mods call a halt often leads to suspicions that an over-arching agenda is at play, and when things are not going in a favoured direction impositions can get applied. Not great for free and open debate.
I agree it can be frustrating, but on balance simply skipping over those that seem to be going in a poor direction still works best for me.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
COMPETITION - I think my workload just went up:)
Big news!
And, to some who follow this blog, possibly something you, or your clients, might be interested in, keen on helping with and/or taking part in.
Junkk.com has been approached to take part in/and help with a forthcoming insert regarding plastics and packaging, in a major national quality daily.
Sponsorship/advertising is not my forte, but it really seems a good, low cost, high value opportunity to reach a decent sized audience in a good, if you'll forgive the double entendre, 'environment'. And considering the prestige of the paper and its association with green initiatives, a great way to get the brand out there in an ethically positive way. Possibly a great chance to help cover any investment with increased sales, beyond any CSR, PR benefits alone.
We are also really reaching out to a broad cross section with our PR efforts, especially in the educational arena, from Blue Peter to the Scouts.
Here's a few bits more blurb from the insert creators, Lysonsdown, as sold to me, to hopefully help explain my role and or sweeten the prospects to any who see merit in taking part!
Information about World of Plastics
It’s coinciding with an education supplement day, and as polymers are now part of the National Curriculum, as Prof MacDonald goes round schools with lectures called Plastic Fantastic and the Science Museum has an exhibit running called Plasticity, it would be great to do a reused plastics competition with Junkk.com
It may either be judged by me, or photos could be posted online to attract people to the website to vote for their favourites.
There could be three categories to separate the wacky, aesthetic or futuristic ones from the practical ones. Or maybe its simpler to have one competition with 2 runners up. It would be fantastic to get Blue Peter to let the winner demonstrate how to make their winning prize on TV as it’s totally fitting with ‘Here’s one I made earlier’.
It would be fabulous for this competition to grow into an annual event. It would come with its own trophy ready designed! {I have offered}
An example of this is on a publication carried out called Teleprescence in January.
If any company is in any way keen to develop a reuse role more in advance of or on the back of this, I'd be happy to make the necessary introduction. Let's not forget that such as ecover have uploaded their entire range to the site, plus ideas, and are finding that the additional values of this quirky 'extra' are going down well with green-minded consumers. More so in these credit-crunchy times. Also Poundland have seen value in being associated with Junkk.com in this way.
I looking forward to that chance that something positive, and mutually-rewarding for all, may result. I cannot speak for the overall content (there may be critiques of the role of plastic of course), but I am simply keen to be proactive of the possibilities of what there is the public can engage with now, and maybe inspire more for the future to help all involved.
As we are also now much further advanced with our RE:tie re:evolutionary cap/closure design, if there may be renewed interest that could be drummed up internally in any organisations we've chatted to so far that would be great, especially as we might well see this featured as a designed-in re:use suggestion to help mitigate plastic packaging impacts, whilst offering a win-win-win... to all involved.
Consumers get a freebie (we'd suggest) and a sense of 'green goodness, the planet suffers a little less in the bin/landfill, Govt., LAs & quangos like WRAP smile more on everything from reduced plastic use (through redesignation more than lightweighting) to less litter, and brands not only get CSR and PR opps, but a component that can have many sales and marketing applications.
For me.... I now need to get back in my shed designing... and on my Mac creating! A clone or 36 hr days would help (though I see I might not meet new EU rules there).
Addendum 1 - Things gather pace. It looks like we may now have the 'sweetener' of a prize which, IMHO, always helps things along. Not to mention being in line with our end-benefit, rewards-based mantra. Onward & upward!
And, to some who follow this blog, possibly something you, or your clients, might be interested in, keen on helping with and/or taking part in.
Junkk.com has been approached to take part in/and help with a forthcoming insert regarding plastics and packaging, in a major national quality daily.
Sponsorship/advertising is not my forte, but it really seems a good, low cost, high value opportunity to reach a decent sized audience in a good, if you'll forgive the double entendre, 'environment'. And considering the prestige of the paper and its association with green initiatives, a great way to get the brand out there in an ethically positive way. Possibly a great chance to help cover any investment with increased sales, beyond any CSR, PR benefits alone.
We are also really reaching out to a broad cross section with our PR efforts, especially in the educational arena, from Blue Peter to the Scouts.
Here's a few bits more blurb from the insert creators, Lysonsdown, as sold to me, to hopefully help explain my role and or sweeten the prospects to any who see merit in taking part!
Information about World of Plastics
It’s coinciding with an education supplement day, and as polymers are now part of the National Curriculum, as Prof MacDonald goes round schools with lectures called Plastic Fantastic and the Science Museum has an exhibit running called Plasticity, it would be great to do a reused plastics competition with Junkk.com
It may either be judged by me, or photos could be posted online to attract people to the website to vote for their favourites.
There could be three categories to separate the wacky, aesthetic or futuristic ones from the practical ones. Or maybe its simpler to have one competition with 2 runners up. It would be fantastic to get Blue Peter to let the winner demonstrate how to make their winning prize on TV as it’s totally fitting with ‘Here’s one I made earlier’.
It would be fabulous for this competition to grow into an annual event. It would come with its own trophy ready designed! {I have offered}
An example of this is on a publication carried out called Teleprescence in January.
If any company is in any way keen to develop a reuse role more in advance of or on the back of this, I'd be happy to make the necessary introduction. Let's not forget that such as ecover have uploaded their entire range to the site, plus ideas, and are finding that the additional values of this quirky 'extra' are going down well with green-minded consumers. More so in these credit-crunchy times. Also Poundland have seen value in being associated with Junkk.com in this way.
I looking forward to that chance that something positive, and mutually-rewarding for all, may result. I cannot speak for the overall content (there may be critiques of the role of plastic of course), but I am simply keen to be proactive of the possibilities of what there is the public can engage with now, and maybe inspire more for the future to help all involved.
As we are also now much further advanced with our RE:tie re:evolutionary cap/closure design, if there may be renewed interest that could be drummed up internally in any organisations we've chatted to so far that would be great, especially as we might well see this featured as a designed-in re:use suggestion to help mitigate plastic packaging impacts, whilst offering a win-win-win... to all involved.
Consumers get a freebie (we'd suggest) and a sense of 'green goodness, the planet suffers a little less in the bin/landfill, Govt., LAs & quangos like WRAP smile more on everything from reduced plastic use (through redesignation more than lightweighting) to less litter, and brands not only get CSR and PR opps, but a component that can have many sales and marketing applications.
For me.... I now need to get back in my shed designing... and on my Mac creating! A clone or 36 hr days would help (though I see I might not meet new EU rules there).
Addendum 1 - Things gather pace. It looks like we may now have the 'sweetener' of a prize which, IMHO, always helps things along. Not to mention being in line with our end-benefit, rewards-based mantra. Onward & upward!
And for everything else there's RE:use..
Tesco tells shoppers: too much packaging? Leave it with us
oooh - 01 Apr 09, 9:06am
Erm, why can't Tesco just sell goods with less packaging in the first place?
Very good point. Maybe... lots of lovely boxes... to be ticked, and bonuses to be made, from the EU to quangos down, when the recycling rates go up?
I have always wondered why supermarkets go to all the extra expense of the excess packaging when... if it is not necessary. I am aware of some reasons, and a few make sense. Food waste from damage being one... and significant. Also life without an element of design would be a bit boring. And there are bigger enviROI-minus targets to fry first, frankly.
But, for the rest...there's always reuse (more so if designed-in)! Try http://www.Junkk.com
oooh - 01 Apr 09, 9:06am
Erm, why can't Tesco just sell goods with less packaging in the first place?
Very good point. Maybe... lots of lovely boxes... to be ticked, and bonuses to be made, from the EU to quangos down, when the recycling rates go up?
I have always wondered why supermarkets go to all the extra expense of the excess packaging when... if it is not necessary. I am aware of some reasons, and a few make sense. Food waste from damage being one... and significant. Also life without an element of design would be a bit boring. And there are bigger enviROI-minus targets to fry first, frankly.
But, for the rest...there's always reuse (more so if designed-in)! Try http://www.Junkk.com
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
I like enviROI:)
Though, I suspect some may not like my use of it.
Boris Johnson to slash London environmental team in half
'...a major shake-up that calls into question the commitment to the environment of the mayor'
By whom? Until we see the enviROI of what gets DONE with the money that makes a difference, rather than talked about endlessly between vast overlapping quango empires with vast comms budgets, I will hold any critique or allusions to 'others' making them until they do.
I am a champion for green initiatives leading the charge, but they need to be tangibles that make my kids' futures better, not box-ticking, target-meeting, non-job-creating, multi-million £ 'awareness'-raising, bonus-feeding, lobbyist-pleasing, lipsmacking, ace-tasting... er.. you get my drift:)
But if any lost are making a real contribution, then questions need to be asked, and answered.
ps: I'm guessing that leaked docos are OK, at least for today? (A Guardian journo was on the Jeremy Vine show yesterday saying it wasn't on, and was allowed to allude to the 'whisleblower' being a Tory mole. Which does kinda smack of those plethora of standards that crank my eyebrow.)
Addendum 1:
What's the saying? 'Careful what you wish for... predict... create?
Interesting, but sad, is how this has progressed.
First thing to note is that, other than a few possible observers, beyond the author (and who knows who they post as?) it is a singles' game.
No matter.
I think, on balance, I was at fault. I was rather sweeping in my critique. But then in mitigation I was irritated by a political/media agenda which, in my view, was already producing some slopping reporting.
But in being flip, I may well have conjured up a vision of a red rag to a public-sectorphilic person with a sore head.
That's where my mea culpa ends.
This person was/is on a very high horse and, despite my attempts, decided to stay upon it. Maybe even rear up more. I was in no mood for too much by way of conciliation.
However, as this was swerving into nasty places I have decided to leave, exit stage...right (wing?), followed, I hope not too far, by the bear.
I obviously think this person to be wrong, unfair and aggressive.
Mainly it's the journalist's fault. Dripping with agenda, they came out with a half story and I objected, maybe swinging too far the other way to show how some others may view matters. But I clearly stated that it was this lack of clarity that prevented objective conclusions so far.
Hence it could be a purging pol looking to save a quick buck on a weak voter sector (currently), or it could be some trimming of fat in crunchier times. Having a degree does not guarantee pay and indeed a job for life for a lot of us.
I am satisfied I did my best, fought the corner for enviROI and, coincidentally managed to work in my concerns of the medium and the messengers.
The Guardian can be a fine reporting organ. But it is read by a small minority, and one which seems too often to think 'others' are beneath them, and contempt.
That is a poor way to bring the majority of the UK population onside, especially as articulated by this representative. I think they have given environmental debate a worse name as a consequence.
Addendum 2 -
Hard to leave such things alone, but I think best to move the debate of the pages of the Guardian, noting that they seem to have about two more readers to me.
There has been a reply, which is more friendly at least, and even more balanced, but perhaps as dangerous. Where the previous poster was 'how dare you have another view', this was more 'Why can't we all be friends... and leave the original post as it was'.
Any reader of this blog will know I am an advocate of doing over talking, but sorry, these two options still leave a result that won't wash... at least with me: doing nothing.
Unlike the latest poster, when I look at my two lovely sons, I feel happy, happy happy, and then angry, and then all the more determined to fight for making their futures as good as they can be.
And that means being pragmatic. Divorcing budgets from actions is the naive mantra of the hopeless idealist. Even foot-stamping, cross ones.
I have never said do nothing. I DO things all the time. I simply advocate that what gets done, with all the money that can and will be allocated to do it, goes to tangibles that make a difference.
Take insulation. I have lost count of the number of bodies - with offices and staff and comms budgets and conference passes - that there are to get it into my dear old Mum's cottage. She doesn't need it, because I did it an age ago. But has she... or I... heard from any one of these overlapping numpties, at least in terms that make sense and create engagement. For every £20, subsidised roll, there is a horde of officers and forms and checks and assessments. All overlapping.
I have been wrong, I am often wrong and I will be wrong. And I am more than willing to be told I am, set things straight and work on the positives of correction and promotion.
But I will not be bullied to silence by those who have a nice little number, or seduced by those who think 'green is always good, no matter what the cost'. Especially when it is with my family's money, more often than not to fund them for what they want, rather than what is actually needed.
End of.
Boris Johnson to slash London environmental team in half
'...a major shake-up that calls into question the commitment to the environment of the mayor'
By whom? Until we see the enviROI of what gets DONE with the money that makes a difference, rather than talked about endlessly between vast overlapping quango empires with vast comms budgets, I will hold any critique or allusions to 'others' making them until they do.
I am a champion for green initiatives leading the charge, but they need to be tangibles that make my kids' futures better, not box-ticking, target-meeting, non-job-creating, multi-million £ 'awareness'-raising, bonus-feeding, lobbyist-pleasing, lipsmacking, ace-tasting... er.. you get my drift:)
But if any lost are making a real contribution, then questions need to be asked, and answered.
ps: I'm guessing that leaked docos are OK, at least for today? (A Guardian journo was on the Jeremy Vine show yesterday saying it wasn't on, and was allowed to allude to the 'whisleblower' being a Tory mole. Which does kinda smack of those plethora of standards that crank my eyebrow.)
Addendum 1:
What's the saying? 'Careful what you wish for... predict... create?
Interesting, but sad, is how this has progressed.
First thing to note is that, other than a few possible observers, beyond the author (and who knows who they post as?) it is a singles' game.
No matter.
I think, on balance, I was at fault. I was rather sweeping in my critique. But then in mitigation I was irritated by a political/media agenda which, in my view, was already producing some slopping reporting.
But in being flip, I may well have conjured up a vision of a red rag to a public-sectorphilic person with a sore head.
That's where my mea culpa ends.
This person was/is on a very high horse and, despite my attempts, decided to stay upon it. Maybe even rear up more. I was in no mood for too much by way of conciliation.
However, as this was swerving into nasty places I have decided to leave, exit stage...right (wing?), followed, I hope not too far, by the bear.
I obviously think this person to be wrong, unfair and aggressive.
Mainly it's the journalist's fault. Dripping with agenda, they came out with a half story and I objected, maybe swinging too far the other way to show how some others may view matters. But I clearly stated that it was this lack of clarity that prevented objective conclusions so far.
Hence it could be a purging pol looking to save a quick buck on a weak voter sector (currently), or it could be some trimming of fat in crunchier times. Having a degree does not guarantee pay and indeed a job for life for a lot of us.
I am satisfied I did my best, fought the corner for enviROI and, coincidentally managed to work in my concerns of the medium and the messengers.
The Guardian can be a fine reporting organ. But it is read by a small minority, and one which seems too often to think 'others' are beneath them, and contempt.
That is a poor way to bring the majority of the UK population onside, especially as articulated by this representative. I think they have given environmental debate a worse name as a consequence.
Addendum 2 -
Hard to leave such things alone, but I think best to move the debate of the pages of the Guardian, noting that they seem to have about two more readers to me.
There has been a reply, which is more friendly at least, and even more balanced, but perhaps as dangerous. Where the previous poster was 'how dare you have another view', this was more 'Why can't we all be friends... and leave the original post as it was'.
Any reader of this blog will know I am an advocate of doing over talking, but sorry, these two options still leave a result that won't wash... at least with me: doing nothing.
Unlike the latest poster, when I look at my two lovely sons, I feel happy, happy happy, and then angry, and then all the more determined to fight for making their futures as good as they can be.
And that means being pragmatic. Divorcing budgets from actions is the naive mantra of the hopeless idealist. Even foot-stamping, cross ones.
I have never said do nothing. I DO things all the time. I simply advocate that what gets done, with all the money that can and will be allocated to do it, goes to tangibles that make a difference.
Take insulation. I have lost count of the number of bodies - with offices and staff and comms budgets and conference passes - that there are to get it into my dear old Mum's cottage. She doesn't need it, because I did it an age ago. But has she... or I... heard from any one of these overlapping numpties, at least in terms that make sense and create engagement. For every £20, subsidised roll, there is a horde of officers and forms and checks and assessments. All overlapping.
I have been wrong, I am often wrong and I will be wrong. And I am more than willing to be told I am, set things straight and work on the positives of correction and promotion.
But I will not be bullied to silence by those who have a nice little number, or seduced by those who think 'green is always good, no matter what the cost'. Especially when it is with my family's money, more often than not to fund them for what they want, rather than what is actually needed.
End of.
Monday, March 30, 2009
I decide to reply to a BBC blooger...
On the one hand, I love useful info. On the other, I don't like being 'fed'.
There were a few elements of 'medium vs. messenger' here, and also some 'politically correct' BBC lines being taken.
Are we all doomed?
Other than death, taxes and licence fees, No. But I'm guessing you mean the humin race, and more specifically through 'probably man-worsened climate change'. In which case no, not for a while, and 'I am not sure anyone knows, yet, but it might be worth sussing out the skinny to prepare'.
Well, we came to America to do nothing less than save the world.
And here was me thinking it was another 'don't do as we do, don't do what we say don't do' jolly to get a programme out and crank up some ratings in the niche end of the schedule, and some hits on a blog. But it is great you had a good time, and guys like our Darryl liked the reach the BBC has so much she caught up with you again.
If a few things might assist in certain endeavours, I'd pop in 'realism' and 'pragmatism' for two.
I have a colleague who lives in fear of their blog because of the aggressive and rude comments people post.
That is neither welcome nor, to use one of our Dear Leader's most fatuous phrases, 'acceptable'. Aggression and rudeness are poor ways to move opinion, IMHO. Especially if the pieces that have provoked such reactions are factual, objective, and free from 'enhanced narratives' and 'interpreted events'. That's what effective, honest moderation is for.
However, as your colleague Susan and her 'superior' might appreciate, it is not unlikely there will be a robust expression of disagreement if liberties are taken. Folk were not keen that President Obama's speech was turned in the edit suite into an 'emerging truth'.
That said...
'...if readers or viewers disagreed their only way to respond was a letter to the editor that, almost always, would go unpublished, if not unread.'
You are aware of the BBC 'House Rules', I take it? They can be, and often are used to delete just about anything that some do not fancy. Still.
A fact that seems to be causing some rumblings in the blogosphere. You can't control what you don't own.
But I'll look forward to the report. So long as it is guided by 'hewing close to the line, and letting the chips fall where they may', and not dogma or agenda. And by heavens the science stays sensible and the enviROI top of mind.
If not, I'm sure a few will be on hand to give you the heads up.
There were a few elements of 'medium vs. messenger' here, and also some 'politically correct' BBC lines being taken.
Are we all doomed?
Other than death, taxes and licence fees, No. But I'm guessing you mean the humin race, and more specifically through 'probably man-worsened climate change'. In which case no, not for a while, and 'I am not sure anyone knows, yet, but it might be worth sussing out the skinny to prepare'.
Well, we came to America to do nothing less than save the world.
And here was me thinking it was another 'don't do as we do, don't do what we say don't do' jolly to get a programme out and crank up some ratings in the niche end of the schedule, and some hits on a blog. But it is great you had a good time, and guys like our Darryl liked the reach the BBC has so much she caught up with you again.
If a few things might assist in certain endeavours, I'd pop in 'realism' and 'pragmatism' for two.
I have a colleague who lives in fear of their blog because of the aggressive and rude comments people post.
That is neither welcome nor, to use one of our Dear Leader's most fatuous phrases, 'acceptable'. Aggression and rudeness are poor ways to move opinion, IMHO. Especially if the pieces that have provoked such reactions are factual, objective, and free from 'enhanced narratives' and 'interpreted events'. That's what effective, honest moderation is for.
However, as your colleague Susan and her 'superior' might appreciate, it is not unlikely there will be a robust expression of disagreement if liberties are taken. Folk were not keen that President Obama's speech was turned in the edit suite into an 'emerging truth'.
That said...
'...if readers or viewers disagreed their only way to respond was a letter to the editor that, almost always, would go unpublished, if not unread.'
You are aware of the BBC 'House Rules', I take it? They can be, and often are used to delete just about anything that some do not fancy. Still.
A fact that seems to be causing some rumblings in the blogosphere. You can't control what you don't own.
But I'll look forward to the report. So long as it is guided by 'hewing close to the line, and letting the chips fall where they may', and not dogma or agenda. And by heavens the science stays sensible and the enviROI top of mind.
If not, I'm sure a few will be on hand to give you the heads up.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
A man to like, on several counts...
Miliband's new green helper
I shall follow now follow another so described: 'impeccable "green" credentials. He is also outspoken and not afraid to criticise the Government. With interest.
I shall follow now follow another so described: 'impeccable "green" credentials. He is also outspoken and not afraid to criticise the Government. With interest.
EARTH HOUR - Confusion time?
At the behest of a few, and as it was/is a 'why not?', I was ready to switch off tonight.
Now, I need to look at enviROI's an messages and messengers again.
Not because of this: Earth Hour is stupid and pointless. Leave the blasted lights on
Or because of this in rebuttal (which it richly deserved. It's one thing to have a contrary view on things, but just being contrary for the sake of it serves no one): Never mind me, what about them
But mainly because of this (and comments in reply): Earth Hour: Turning out the lights plays into the hands of our critics
As a pragmatist, my greatest concern is this on the science: it is claimed 'this will not actually reduce any emissions. Power companies always keep spare capacity and will keep their turbines spinning through this unpredictable fall in demand in preparation for when people turn their lights back on again'.
However, the caution on the effect to the vast proportion of very lite greens to don't cares is well taken.
A dilemma indeed.
On the one had if any ask why my house is in darkness do I show it to be a tokenist but worthy piece of 'awareness', or set myself up for be more part of a problem then the solution?
As I seek to confirm the counter-engineering aruments by some posters, I am still erring on 'off'. Also I worry about an author who is linked to a site that last updated in Dec. of last year. Junkk's home page has new stuff (ideas and blogs) about 6 times a day. This is a fast moving sector!
FWIW, this PC will now be off then, having been convinced that it is better to switch in on and off daily than spin 24/7 (the energy in standby vs. energy to buy a new one as they break quicker if spun up and down all the time - but roll on solid state hard drives of 1 TB)
BBC - World cities begin big switch-off -
The Australian - Hour of no power increases emissions - No idea about the claims until they are challenged, but we now seem to be in a zone of looking like you're doing something being more important than actually doing it. My awareness is will honed, but what will be the actual effect on someone less concerned?
Telegraph - NEW - Earth Hour: Landmarks plunged into darkness in support of climate change action - I did my bit... I was in bed!
Now, I need to look at enviROI's an messages and messengers again.
Not because of this: Earth Hour is stupid and pointless. Leave the blasted lights on
Or because of this in rebuttal (which it richly deserved. It's one thing to have a contrary view on things, but just being contrary for the sake of it serves no one): Never mind me, what about them
But mainly because of this (and comments in reply): Earth Hour: Turning out the lights plays into the hands of our critics
As a pragmatist, my greatest concern is this on the science: it is claimed 'this will not actually reduce any emissions. Power companies always keep spare capacity and will keep their turbines spinning through this unpredictable fall in demand in preparation for when people turn their lights back on again'.
However, the caution on the effect to the vast proportion of very lite greens to don't cares is well taken.
A dilemma indeed.
On the one had if any ask why my house is in darkness do I show it to be a tokenist but worthy piece of 'awareness', or set myself up for be more part of a problem then the solution?
As I seek to confirm the counter-engineering aruments by some posters, I am still erring on 'off'. Also I worry about an author who is linked to a site that last updated in Dec. of last year. Junkk's home page has new stuff (ideas and blogs) about 6 times a day. This is a fast moving sector!
FWIW, this PC will now be off then, having been convinced that it is better to switch in on and off daily than spin 24/7 (the energy in standby vs. energy to buy a new one as they break quicker if spun up and down all the time - but roll on solid state hard drives of 1 TB)
BBC - World cities begin big switch-off -
The Australian - Hour of no power increases emissions - No idea about the claims until they are challenged, but we now seem to be in a zone of looking like you're doing something being more important than actually doing it. My awareness is will honed, but what will be the actual effect on someone less concerned?
Telegraph - NEW - Earth Hour: Landmarks plunged into darkness in support of climate change action - I did my bit... I was in bed!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)