Comments Junkk Male2 has made

Now who's 'aving a larf?'

'What will be the fallout?'

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?
On From Emo to Ego posted 1 year, 8 months ago 4 Responses

If necessary I'll fly to convince you personally.

As I was just saying on my blog and site, which are available, free, along with some stuff you can DO....

'Re: the unearthed 'exclusive' in little-known publication Newsweek.

Noted enviro-writer Mr. Monbiot's plan is certainly 'a' plan, if honestly described by him as being based on 'inexact science', with a few of his 'rough estimates' lobbed in, with the odd 'guess'. I just hope the deniers don't see that little lot as an opportunity for robust rebuttal.

Beyond offering such unwelcome ammo to the 'do nothing' camp, I'm not sure quite how practical this plan is. But then you don't sell many books or get invited to many interviews based on the politics of compromise. News media like to drive ratings first, not inform, and the best way is to pop a couple of pit bulls from opposing camps in the ring and let the games begin. Let's see what big-oil funded shock-jock they can wheel out to say anything that hasn't been countered a million times before.

I'm sure a lot more will read and respond to the magazine (me, I am happy to get it online), but to add to the mighty one views (rating 0.5) at my time of reading the linked piece, and having read a lot of Mr. M's thoughts before, to be charitable and acknowledge the breadth of his knowledge in this arena it seemed to suffer from some rather drastic editing.

I can't recall quite how he promoted his book, Heat (available in all good bookstores at a very reasonable price), or gets to and from his many commitments without the need for personal transport, but as Frank Drebin says, that is not important right now. I am sure getting paid to do his job travelling about is more important than many other folk with careers and families to support.

As for trading the eco-consequences of such travel, is this just between rich folk, or does the population of the globe get to play too?

Per Mr. Cameron's (our Leader of the Opposition here in the UK) notion, I'm guessing a few hundred thousand Kalahari bushmen are ready to let you get to the Earth Aid concert in a private 737, with on board LPG Humvee, based on their allocation. With about 5.5 billion more folk waiting in line.

Green Air - Flying the Sanctimonious, Irony-free Skies'

Do before you talk. Then share. If it's also fun and inspiring, people will want to read more. They may even be inspired follow your example.

Oscar Wilde would have been proud...

... to resist such temptation:

BBC 2 Newsnight - AL GORE

'We have an exclusive interview tonight with Al Gore - he'll be discussing the controversy around his film "An Inconvenient Truth" and we'll be asking him about his own carbon footprint.'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsnight

Enjoy.

Do before you talk. Then share. If it's also fun and inspiring, people will want to read more. They may even be inspired follow your example.

New York (Post) New York (Post)

So good they named one twice, and the other simply got uploaded once more than intended. My bad. Sorry.

Do before you talk. Then share. If it's also fun and inspiring, people will want to read more. They may even be inspired follow your example.

The Nelson Touch...

...a patch from a more jaundiced eye?

It is worth remembering that, like many cultures, there are always a few alternative ways something can get taken, depending on the point you are looking from.

In the UK, it often seems there is what happens in the corridors of power and the surrounding London C-zone (in London the C is for congestion charge, but some may say it could also stand for `centric', the way the city's young, non-parent, tube, bus and flat-road blessed cyclopaths seem to view things) that takes in the media and urban luvvies.... and the rest of the country.

For sure, the environment is BIG. Certainly in government  - we just had another budget where they stuck it to those 4x4s again, which will really make a difference to those in the City earning a bazzillion trading carbon credits when it comes to the annual upgrade to a wind-powered Cayenne, but may make it a bit harder in countryside where folk are still running 30 year old Land Rovers. Remind me again, how much of a car's carbon is in manufacture?

Glad the EU is agreeing to stuff anyway. Well, the leaders are not agreeing to very much they are asking the rest of us to do, if Mr. Baroso's defence of his Touareg is anything to go by. And our dear leader, and equally dear leader of HM's Opposition seem to have a small problem with the whole not flying thing if it applies to making THEIR lives nicer, easier and/or more profitable. Like the rest of us were doing it, especially on business, because we just love sucking up the bird flu from row 22.

And as to targets, we have enough for even an NRA Glee Club to go ape over. Hitting them... not so good. But we got `em. Squillions! And even more folk to assess, measure, interpret, committee, file, report, fine, explain, excuse, fly to Bali to discuss and all round not do very much but add to the demands on the public purse to keep a load of folk in green-gold until Armageddon.

Now I don't want to get into a `Big Oil denier/Eco-Nazi who said what and is funded by whom' quote-fest, but I would like to know who the `most commentators' were who welcomed this package. `Cos I don't recall it being quite as all round rosy and unequivocal as that. At least outside the C-zone, and even a few media guys from within that seemed a little less than impressed with how recognition of a need ever seems to turn into effective action.

Yes, stuff needs doing. And to ensure it gets done right, what it is needs to be agreed. Sadly, and it pains me to say this, this does necessitate some KPIs, but here is where think-tanks, government, eco-activists, business, the media, the public and real life may start to diverge.
Me, I just want what's best for my kids and their kids, so all I really care about is the enviROI, the return that the planet gets on any efforts made to reduce man's impact upon it (if indeed there is any, or whether it is necessary or not to mitigate a possible natural influence... or not). Been there. Got the blog-flames and a nifty hemp T-shirt that says "Make sure your footprint isn't a CarbCon one'.

Chancellor Gordon Brown, who MAY be Prime Minister from June unless I have missed something, does have a fondness for  decrees. Not so popular with the British public though, such things. And as pointed out, there is theory and there is practice, and who is in office and who is not. Plus who has retired with a nice index-linked, gold-plated pension, and who is mopping up afterwards.

Unless I was only reading subversive underground literature, Enviro Minister David Miliband's floated ideas on personal carbon allowances were more of the lead balloon variety, being meant for no more than a toe dip and not exactly floated very high at all. And the guns seemed pretty well out for it even with the wee outing it did have.

A bit like those punted by David Cameron, the Conservative leader and, possibly, next leader of the land if the current polls are anything to go by. Both see carbon allowances and trading as a wheeze, and it is easy to see how they would appeal to those with mates in London, and being immune from the consequences of their actions 'because they are busy and important'. Just ask how the old road pricing went down. No problem in London. Not so great where folk have 50 mile round trips daily in the provinces.

I am also unclear as to how the science is getting... any clearer. The IPCC report rated two days in the broadsheets and barely got a mention in the tabloids. A few niche TV media had a stab. Then along came the Channel 4 documentary (mentioned in these pages),  and fewer people think climate is an issue than did before. And that wasn't many. Most think it's a big con to squeeze taxes in the name of green to prop up runaway public spending and ministerial pensions and pointless campaigns from overfunded comms budgets.

If big companies are getting serious, it's only because they don't like the look of the fines coming, or see money in the marketing. Major retailers like Tescos are struggling to explain how a wind-turbine on a trial store's roof makes up for concreting over most of the country with car parks to sell Spanish strawberries in foam packs. Especially as the former will boost profits anyway. Meanwhile Richard Branson is still spinning how sending billionaires up on a column of greenhouse gasses for their own inter-stellar Kodak moment is offset by his air fleet not yet being on biodiesel. And Stuart Rose of M&S  has ordered a hydrogen-powered Beemer which will need a truck to follow it with refills. Bless.

Speaking of which, and competition between political parties, it was Mr. Cameron who rather famously cycled to work with his lunchbox following behind in a hybrid Lexus. But at least his wind turbine went up today. I have posed a question online as to its actual enviROI during its lifespan. While I see no problem with forking out extra cash to save the planet, I do have one with churning out superficial guff that will do no such thing. And the spin vs. action surrounding that inner-city propeller blade makes for a worthy metaphor on what we are facing.

I have long been in favour of allowances, but simply can't see how they are to be managed. Who gets one tax-free flight? Me? Madonna and Guy? What about every Kalahari bushman and Mekong Delta boat lady who didn't even know they were part of the global reckoning. Or... aren't they? Is it just for rich folk to trade with each other? Because if 6 billion get one free flight I'd say Ryan Air shares will go ballistic. And the planet will fry in a fortnight.

There's debate all right. Maybe it's me, but from deniers and e-fascists on climate change, to politicians trying to score cheap, non-binding e-points, it all seems pretty ineffective stuff. And if it's passing me by when I care as much as I do, I think it all needs to get a bit more relevant to the rest of the UK population sooner rather than later.

And on the day we see a bunch more taxes go up in the budget, with little to show for it than more beancounters with clipboards, those who are in power, and those in un-elected Quangos doing very nicely from their profligate, unaccountable spending, would do well to remember the people still have a vote.

At least for now.

Nope, still can't see any ships on the horizon quite yet.

Do before you talk. Then share. If it's also fun and inspiring, people will want to read more. They may even be inspired follow your example.

Mirror, mirror

'If only God the gift had gae us, to see oursel's as others see us'
Robert Burns

Re: A long rant about facts, persuasion, and global warming

I guess it's OK here (though while I am personally interested, I don't feel qualified and hence any more able to stay adequately focused on all this, possibly along with a few others who may not feel motivated to make it even as far as this fine forum), but here are a few subjective points to offer.

While some facts do need length for the full stories to be adequately told, when talking about persuasion on global warming, I suspect few media outlets are prepared to permit anything more than a sound bite that will feed the next headline.

Hiding behind the veracity of science is comforting as a justification, and its purity over realities of communication a possible consolation, but care must be taken that one only sees one aspect of science as 'the truth', and remains didactic in fighting from only that corner.

These are challenges to be addressed,  whist avoiding a few other things.

High on the list, possibly, could be rants?

Do before you talk. Then share. If it's also fun and inspiring, people will want to read more. They may even be inspired follow your example.

Creeps over here....

Doesn't warrant a new post (not that I would know how to do one anyway), but in light of the preceding comments I thought you may be interested in this:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/foreign/tobyharnden/mar07/ki ...

Do before you talk. Then share. If it's also fun and inspiring, people will want to read more. They may even be inspired follow your example.

George of the Rumble

Makes you proud to be a Brit, eh?

For every two Beckhams, we have a Monbiot. So at that rate... we're toast. Celebs. And anti-celeb celebs. Can live with 'em, can't... er... no that's about it. And I guess that applies to me too, as an anti-anti-celeb (as I can often 'wonder' in places such as this just how sincere some are themselves or, if sincere, effective on a planetary scale as opposed to on a nice little personal earner basis).

So thank you for this link.

It's so odd. By any measure I trawl the e-pages of the UK media a bit more than most (who needs to get a life?) and until this moment I had no inkling such a thing existed, even courtesy of our George's usual hunting grounds, which I read daily and have done for a few years.

Well worth a gander.

I wonder what other people think of it? I'll have to declare an interest, I had/have something similar in mind, called Pol's Porkies, which stands for POLitician's PORky Pies, which is Cockney  slang for lies. But I soon extended it to anyone in the public eye who said one thing and did another. Even better if the former was high-profile and the other low rent.

http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/01/gloucester-old-spot-now ...

Now I have registered it, but have yet to build it. So it's a might miffing when GM crops (geddit?) up and it turns out he has beaten me to the punch.

Popping over the parapet, and with glasses tinted green with envy, I have had a scope and do feel moved to cock a critical eyebrow, as I am wont.

First and foremost, and with no book in the offing... yet... I am always a tad suspicious of anything that is associated with a sales effort. Somehow it seems to weaken the purity of the concept.

Next, and purely subjectively, though with a few decades as a designer under my belt, it all comes off as a bit placard waving graphically, typographically and in copy terms. I thought I'd arrived at a Marxist rallying point to march on Westminster - to protest the price of non-Fairtrade lattes en route through Islington.

This, and the style makes me almost sympathetic to Chris, Richard and our Tel, etc. 'George' is watching you! Which makes 'George' Big Brother, which makes him...?

I also note, and Grist readers will hopefully appreciate this, a distinct lack of humour here. Hard to empathise with very much, frankly.

Which in one way is a pity, because having read his home page mantra I can't disagree with it at all. But in another it is good, because I think, immodestly, I can do a lot better. Mainly by not doing much at all. I intend Polsporkies.info to be of the people, by the people for the people, in much the same way as Junkk.com is. Frustratingly, he has also similar version to my TushTissue (for highlighting 'papering over' jobbies, rather than 'dealing withs') and even NewsFlip, as in the bird, but also as 'flip' commentary, highlighting news that is so superficial as to muddy already murky waters.

But for these I intend to just create the system, probably tabular (said, done, date, attribution, date, etc) make it as user content manged as I can. Then retire immediately having lit the fuse. I very much see it as a factual grid with a only a little moderation to ensure factual accuracy, minimal law suits and perhaps scope to inject a bit of fun to keep things bubbling.

And when I collect my award from Nelson Mandela (it's in there on his site - if you are going to drop a name, his is well worth it), I will worry very much how I detour from my global book tour to do it with out looking down the barrel of my own gun through the hole in my foot. Glad to see he is not all talk though (the actions being...?)

Because there does seem to be a new breed of Green elite whose jobs require them to buzz about (legitimately, by some logic)  telling other folk that they should not have jobs that require them to buzz about. This, on occasion, has seen the odd mention of the phrase 'double standard' and even the H word being levelled back. With some justification I may add. And which does weaken the foundations of certain pedestals. And as I have opined before, a fallen idol can do more damage crashing down, and undo a lot of good they may have achieved whilst evangelising.

Fortunately I don't tell folk how to behave. I just ask questions, share information and try to lead by as best an example as I can.

It's less stressful.

Uh-oh... incoming!!!

Do before you talk. Then share. If it's also fun and inspiring, people will want to read more. They may even be inspired follow your example.

I'm guess the UK green medai are not keen

I think what first gave me an inkling was the headline 'The Big Green Fuel Lie'.

http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/03/with-all-due-apologies- ...

Do before you talk. Then share. If it's also fun and inspiring, people will want to read more. They may even be inspired follow your example.

The rich are different.

They can often afford to save time and save money.

Last time I looked most have to work to earn money to pay mortgages, feed and educate kids, etc. Work means 50 weeks a year at home. A lucky few have other sources of income to fund their beliefs and, one trusts, their practices.

But you are right; I try to spend most of my money and my time at home funding and generating content for my free re:use ideas website. It actually seems to help some save money, AND time, AND the planet (a bit).

Still not too clear how I do this and fulfil family obligations.

Anyway, as we're big on boats being a cure, try this:

http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/03/ever-get-that-sinking-f ...

Maybe that freighter trip would have served civilisation better by not being taken at all. Hmmmn?  I wonder what it was loaded with? Or picking  up for the return? Consumer goods to save folk time and spend more money? Who's to say?

I have to say I still find being green a bit of an exercise in compromise. I envy those who are able to be so black and white about it.

It will be interesting to see who can serve the interests of the future best by motivating the masses with pragmatic and realistic solutions, as opposed to whacking out simple sound bites, no matter how dead right they may be.

Do before you talk. Then share. If it's also fun and inspiring, people will want to read more. They may even be inspired follow your example.

Junk Mail from Junkk Male

Sorry... couldn't resist:)

I think Dillbert has hit the nail on the head in his first post, second para.

And is certainly true that here in the UK we have similar systems already in place which are not exactly encouraged by the postal services, who can be a powerful lobby group (a lot of posties are in Unions).

But playing Devil's Advocate, I do wonder (don't know so any answers to clarify welcome) about logistics. I often do want some DM, and could care less about others. How do I register for what I want, how do those who want me to get it send it and how does the postal system vet accordingly... and who pays?  I just fear a catch all that means we cease to get a source of information that can be valid and valuable. Thanks to our own Telephone Preference System I cannot call companies on the list, who rather insanely don't want to hear about anything new from people they don't know. And with ISPs like AOL we have had the sending and receipt of email communication under consideration for similar 'vetting', though it seems those that can afford to can pay their way out of it. So one could argue this may discriminate against those less able to afford it. Thin end of a wedge?

Also (same knowledge caveat applies, and bearing in mind I run a re:duction, re:use and re:pair site, hence my concern on mass censorship on e-communication, though ours, like Grist, is opt-in), I was wondering in the great global warming scheme of things how damaging recycled paper products from managed forests are, in the same way as, say, biodiesel.

Could it (shriek-proof earmuff in place) be that encouraging relatively fast growing, protected  greenhouse sinks may have a place as part of the carbon capture global repertoire?

Just asking.

Do before you talk. Then share. If it's also fun and inspiring, people will want to read more. They may even be inspired follow your example.

You say humor, I say humour...

... but 'the special relationship' remains so long as we maintain our sense of...!

Oo-er... outed. Yes, 'tis I. Thank you for the faint praise, so I will continue writing. Noting your comment on my lengthy predilections (and a slight case of RSI), I made my next (on the Colbert post subsequently) reply brief to the point of invisibility. I rather think it all rather proved a few of my points, mind.

Moods were fouled all round I'd hazard. I just fear the eventual victim will be rational debate and clear, persuasive communication to the general public. And mixed messages.

I actually popped a tweak in the Brit Fairtrader's blog to wonder about the food mile consequences of his actions.

Above and beyond the affordability to some of these worthy efforts by urban journalists, there is also the fact that they send out some contradictory notions that need to be weighed up. Save underpaid mango farmer? Save planet he/she stands on with the rest of us from unnecessary emissions by simply doing without? Tricky dilemma for the ethical activist.

Mine is how to visit my wife's family in Singapore as she hasn't seen them in a few years (maybe I can find a conference to attend and offset?). Green ain't easy, is it?

Do before you talk. Then share. If it's also fun and inspiring, people will want to read more. They may even be inspired follow your example.

The British Are Leaving! The British Are Leaving!

Whilst I am not so sure some posters, especially myself, would even agree anyone is attacking anyone (it just comes off a bit like screaming racist at the drop of a hat), I am glad to see at least the effort I put into a serious issue (pseudo or not, the word `scandal' was the opening post, though not one I would have chosen) has been acknowledged, especially in response to what I presumed to be an invitation to take part in a discussion - `Still basking in Oscar's glow, Al Gore makes headlines for using a lotta energy. An inconvenient truth or an ugly smear campaign?'

Despite Mark Twain's fine copywriting advice, I often have a lot to say, but it is sincere and it is well meant. Hopefully this next effort will be better appreciated for its content rather than its length (oh, missus, for the Benny Hillophiles out there). I'll try and do a USA Today version, but no promises... or charts. Sometimes important issues are hard to deal with superficially lest things get taken out of context or suffer from lack of proper investigation and explanation, don't you find? Imagine a Simpson's length version (including ad breaks) of an important issue, say, like Global Warming (I know, they did do one, and it was very good, though the real message may have passed some by).

Along with a few others who posted in reply to the invitation, I do not believe that the intention of the original post or blog was meant to solicit responses only from those who had something supportive to say to the proposition. Though I guess some in the team can believe certain balls only get played with when you support the side who owns them. But you could argue it's like those who make and sell baby bottles getting in a snit at any publication that carries a less than flattering report on their safety to babies, and then bunker down and have a group `others suck' in babybottle.com with fellow baby bottlers. Best to take the opportunity to engage in discussion, persuade and prove your product, or case, is valid. If it is. Saying those who pass comment are in the pay of non-babybottlism is just throwing... er... baby bottles out of the pram.

In all my years living and working in the States I never really saw the truth of the old adage 'Separated by a common language', but in that vast, great country, with distance amplifying demographic differences, I must say my sense of humour did meet varied responses. It is to my shame that I neglected to remember this in posting to a blog that spans not just the world but, more importantly, the Atlantic to the Pacific, centre of the known universe.

I would also never presume to tell any one anything. I often opine. I always ask questions. I may suggest another course. But I am not sufficiently convinced of my rectitude in anything to `tell' anyone anything. I sometimes envy those who do, as it allows them to insert their values in places where others may hesitate, or not be welcome. Often this can be with favorable outcomes (depending on whom you ask). On occasion it can be seen as an unmitigated global disaster.

So my opening remark was merely intended as humor. Just as my American co-workers would remind me (I thought with a degree of irony of their own), 'there is no 'I' in team, I felt my light-hearted play on words would be appreciated as a suitable introduction to a piece on the value on `team debate' being conducted in the spirit of levity, with humor at its core. But in being put right on the error of my ways at least I have had a lesson in both ancient linguistics and nationalistic fervour (whoops).

Sadly, you don't need to go looking too hard for offence. If you seek it, it will find you. So I am sorry for any given. It was unintentional.

What I am not sorry for is having a thoughtful opinion on a core issue that the environmental movement faces today.

It is undoubted that the single greatest task that we're (if I may make so bold as a non-leader) facing today is the motivation of the masses. When a voter or consumer stirs, politicians and corporations pay heed. But I am not so sure about media. By my understanding they are supposed to objectively form and reflect public sentiment and opinion, but it seems all too often they set out to shape it. This may be due to the unelected nature of the senior officers at the helm (not a problem exclusive to the media, one should add). It is hard not to let personal views stray into subjective issues. Just as it is hard for an employee not to see that their next paycheque can depend on supporting those views. Ain't democracy and its defenders wonderful?

It's also desperately unfair, but the media will seldom allow any public figure to change their mind, even over a span of decades.

This is not a problem for Mr. Gore, as his commitment in the long term is undoubted, if perhaps not his effectiveness while in office and, until fairly recently, out of it (by my, non-US awareness). However, as Steven T concedes, this is just the beginning, and the media scene needs to be managed, and managed well to get the result we all are aiming for. That was my main point. What is, is. And how such as the UK press reports needs to be addressed, especially if it is indeed disturbingly unrepresentative of the true facts. We are talking a global situation here. (Tip : defences like `Most of the electricity in TN comes from hydro and nuclear, and so doesn't generate all that much CO2 anyway' wouldn't fly too well here. We don't waste because we can afford to. Especially when setting examples. So as a suggestion I'd drop that one).

Having spent my time in the States in the more affluent regions of the Coasts, Texas and Utah, I do not feel qualified to speak of the blue-collar (wo)man's views there, or how they get reflected, but I do wonder how representative the views expressed in a niche medium such as this are reflective of national commitment and belief. As we are talking the future of the planet, the number of participants outside of a relatively small clique is still disappointingly small.

Which returns us to the point at hand. The BBC, with access to a nation of 60M, and a more than sympathetic commitment to green issues, was quite happy to run the negative reporting with little context. If it's juicy, tabloids such as The Sun will deliver a print readership in the many millions. You can score positive coverage with celebrity, but it is a tenuous pact that you enter into, and the sword is double-edged, and once unsheathed can be turned very quickly and be hard to return.

Yes, Cameron Diaz will be most welcome to stand in Hyde Park and tell us why she drives a G-Wiz. But it will be asked how she got here to do it. And while Jamiroquai may say that his latest gig to get in the Guinness Book of Records (in a plane) was offset by 'his people', there are those who may suggest that not going up there in the first place may have served the planet, here and now, less well than his immediate career PR.

I mentioned Gandhi because a previous poster had, and not as an `attack'. I do not see anything in what I wrote accusing Mr. Gore of anything, unfairly or not. I merely felt it an suitable analogy to give pause for thought to those who expressed the view that  double standards are OK so long as it is in a good cause. Especially when dealing with the media and the masses.

Because I simply beg to disagree. If you are trying to persuade the working public, and no longer have a compliant (greater good for the future vs. great headline tomorrow) press to help you shape their views, you better have a good story, with no holes, and an even better team in place to sell it, both in front and in back of camera. I for one simply cannot support  `a rationale for putting the stress on the problem as opposed to proposing solutions'. As any life assurer will tell you, you don't sell a policy by scaring people with death. But these boys still make sales... and have been doing so for years... how?

I just think that if you are setting yourself up as a 'leader' or spokesperson for mitigating our effects though personal behaviour, you need to set the credibility bar at a manageable level. It's one, wonderful (though I would imagine the ownership of the resulting valuable invention may result in that being covered, as simply good business) thing to put up $25M chump change as a prize to kill greenhouse gasses, but is it helped by our Mr. Branson also punting rich old folk into orbit to have their Kodak moment on top of a few Brazilian forest's worth of greenhouse gas compo? I'm erring on, at best, a mixed message for those who may see their house rates go up if they don't put insulation in, which many can't afford. I'm only sorry they are not reading this, as I doubt many are.

But it's going to be a great target for those sipping their Fairtrade Fortnight mocha latté dusted with airflown (isn't that... no... never mind) truffles, who can afford the money, time and selective causes to support without much denting their cosy lifestyles. How many buying the products advertised here do so `as well as' rather than `instead of'?

Green is good, but not much for the planet's chances if it is merely seen as a hobbyhorse to jump upon to further conspicuous consumption in another guise. I am not advocating hair-shirtism, but a bit of cutting back could be a good way to go. And to inspire others to embrace the lead, those at the 'top' (wherever that is any more, and I am afraid, as a tea-party sympathizer from the old oppressors' country, I have my own views on who deserve to be called `leaders') could well look at the examples they set.

But in light of some defensive replies (I get one from caniscandia, who with some irony gets one from another. Even poor old Green Granny (no ageism intended) gets a serve for not toeing the line. How divide and rule is that!) I see here to a post about good humor, may I wish you the best of British luck.

If this is the best you can do in the country that has the most power to effect change, the planet is going to need it.

Me, I'm off now to do some more about it. In my shed.

(1,827 words. Sorry, caniscandida;(

Do before you talk. Then share. If it's also fun and inspiring, people will want to read more. They may even be inspired follow your example.