Today I attended a meeting at the DfT with the ad industry and interested bodies. Boy, are they unhappy with us. They don't like that they are going to have to put CO2 info on their pretty car ads. Apparently it will ruin the ad industry and the economy...!
The same person, who will remain anonymous said at the beginning of the meeting "All of us support regulation and want to comply with the law." By the end of the meeting she was saying "If you give us specific guidance it's easy for us to get around." I think the latter comment might be the more honest!
The fact is, the DfT aren't going to backtrack on this - the legislation will be brought in. Whether it is strictly enforced is another matter. To be realistic, I am sceptical.
Now we have a month (the industry wanted 10 weeks!) to go away and decide what size the info regarding CO2 should be on the billboards. We want it big and easy to understand. They want it tiny, ignorable and incomprehensible.
The funniest thing was how they kept trying to tell us that the info didn't serve a purpose so why should it be there at all? However, if it doesn't serve a purpose and isn't generally read, why do they have such a problem putting it on there in the first place? Because it will make their ad unsightly? They should just see it as a challenge to creating subtler ads, like our friends the cigarette advertisers did, back in the day.
At the end of the meeting we were sworn to secrecy. We were told not to talk to the press. So I've granted anonymity to the above woman. But they're not going to stop me blogging about it. I just can't keep secrets, evidently.
Wednesday, 27 August 2008
Tuesday, 5 August 2008
Co-mingling / Co-mangling
I have been doing lots of research on co-mingled recycling, which is the system we've got in Haringey at present. As I have long suspected, NOT recycling is actually better than putting things into a co-mingled system. I sent the following letter to Cllr Brian Haley, cabinet member for Environment and Conservation at Haringey Council:
Dear Cllr Brian Haley,
I have recently heard from my local councillor Rachel Allison that Haringey Council are soon going to look again at their recycling scheme.
I live on the Summersby Road estate in N6, and we had recycling facilities introduced earlier this year, after two years of asking for bins to be delivered. Residents have taken to recycling easily, and the bins are regularly full.
However, we have discussed at Residents’ Association meetings the issue of co-mingled versus separated recycling facilities, and it largely agreed that we would prefer the latter scheme.
There are many reasons why separated recycling is better than co-mingled (aka co-mangled!), as I am sure you are already aware, namely:
A recent WRAP report pointed to the fact that only 12-15% of co-mingled recycling actually ends up getting recycled. If Haringey was really recycling, as it claims, 25% of its waste, that would still be low. But 12-15% of 25% is truly scandalous in 2008.
Glass that has been put into co-mingled recycling facilities is so degraded that it can only be used as road aggregate. Andy Moore of the Campaign for Real Recycling told me that recently roadfill people have been rejecting loads of late.
The paper gets so contaminated by glass fragments and the remnants of what was in the bottles and cans that no British papermaker can use it to make recycled paper. So it gets sent to the Far East. And what happens to it there? Maybe Malaysian papermakers have lower standards or better technology. Maybe not. Either way it would make more sense not to contaminate the paper in the first place.
A recent report showed that Greenwich’s co-mingled scheme ADDED 77% to the carbon footprint. In other words, people would be better off not recycling at all. This is disheartening, as residents are keen to ‘do their bit’ for the environment by recycling, an activity they undertake in good faith.
I know that by collecting a co-mingled recycling load you can increase tonnage and meet government targets more readily, but as discussion at our residents’ meetings has shown, people are not ignorant. They are wholly suspicious of co-mingling, as well they should be.
I also understand that by switching to separated recycling facilities, it may mean more collection lorries on the road. However, I can see two possible solutions:
1) Separate out the glass from the co-mingled collection to minimise contamination. This could be done relatively easily by giving residents a separate bag for glass.
2) Collect paper and cardboard (“fibres”) separately from glass, plastic and metal (“containers”). This method allows reasonably easy automated separation of “containers” and it means any leftover food and drink in the “containers” doesn’t contaminate the paper. The whole of Germany uses this system.
Regarding the increased trucks on the street, so we could fuel them using biomethane made from food waste, which has virtually no carbon or noxious emissions, and which Veolia is currently trialling in Camden.
It makes sense to switch to switch to separated facilities if Haringey TRULY wants to be the ‘Greenest Borough’. From an economic point of view, materials will be of a greater quality and therefore result in an increased revenue.
I hope you take the responsible, the ‘green’ and the correct decision, and opt for separated recycling facilities at the soonest possible opportunity.
I look forward to hearing from you on this important matter,
Yours Sincerely,
Sarah Mitchell
Chair, Summersby Road Residents’ Association.
Dear Cllr Brian Haley,
I have recently heard from my local councillor Rachel Allison that Haringey Council are soon going to look again at their recycling scheme.
I live on the Summersby Road estate in N6, and we had recycling facilities introduced earlier this year, after two years of asking for bins to be delivered. Residents have taken to recycling easily, and the bins are regularly full.
However, we have discussed at Residents’ Association meetings the issue of co-mingled versus separated recycling facilities, and it largely agreed that we would prefer the latter scheme.
There are many reasons why separated recycling is better than co-mingled (aka co-mangled!), as I am sure you are already aware, namely:
A recent WRAP report pointed to the fact that only 12-15% of co-mingled recycling actually ends up getting recycled. If Haringey was really recycling, as it claims, 25% of its waste, that would still be low. But 12-15% of 25% is truly scandalous in 2008.
Glass that has been put into co-mingled recycling facilities is so degraded that it can only be used as road aggregate. Andy Moore of the Campaign for Real Recycling told me that recently roadfill people have been rejecting loads of late.
The paper gets so contaminated by glass fragments and the remnants of what was in the bottles and cans that no British papermaker can use it to make recycled paper. So it gets sent to the Far East. And what happens to it there? Maybe Malaysian papermakers have lower standards or better technology. Maybe not. Either way it would make more sense not to contaminate the paper in the first place.
A recent report showed that Greenwich’s co-mingled scheme ADDED 77% to the carbon footprint. In other words, people would be better off not recycling at all. This is disheartening, as residents are keen to ‘do their bit’ for the environment by recycling, an activity they undertake in good faith.
I know that by collecting a co-mingled recycling load you can increase tonnage and meet government targets more readily, but as discussion at our residents’ meetings has shown, people are not ignorant. They are wholly suspicious of co-mingling, as well they should be.
I also understand that by switching to separated recycling facilities, it may mean more collection lorries on the road. However, I can see two possible solutions:
1) Separate out the glass from the co-mingled collection to minimise contamination. This could be done relatively easily by giving residents a separate bag for glass.
2) Collect paper and cardboard (“fibres”) separately from glass, plastic and metal (“containers”). This method allows reasonably easy automated separation of “containers” and it means any leftover food and drink in the “containers” doesn’t contaminate the paper. The whole of Germany uses this system.
Regarding the increased trucks on the street, so we could fuel them using biomethane made from food waste, which has virtually no carbon or noxious emissions, and which Veolia is currently trialling in Camden.
It makes sense to switch to switch to separated facilities if Haringey TRULY wants to be the ‘Greenest Borough’. From an economic point of view, materials will be of a greater quality and therefore result in an increased revenue.
I hope you take the responsible, the ‘green’ and the correct decision, and opt for separated recycling facilities at the soonest possible opportunity.
I look forward to hearing from you on this important matter,
Yours Sincerely,
Sarah Mitchell
Chair, Summersby Road Residents’ Association.
Tuesday, 29 July 2008
A Full Throttle Experience
Last week I attended the Motor Show at the vast ExCel centre in East London, along with my Alliance Against Urban 4x4s colleagues Sian Berry and Blake Ludwig. For anyone who hasn't visited this event, imagine a massive airport terminal with shiny cars of every description, groups of lads (some topless!), blaring music and annorexic girls trying to look seductive whilst standing folornly by the side of a car.
On the plus side, there was a Greener Driving section, with electric cars and even a new Tesla, the electric sports car that has just been manufactured. Sian was most impressed by this but I remonstrated that there was no room for a baby seat, much less a pushchair. Ever the pragmatist.
We also attended the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership 5th Annual Conference, which took place upstairs, well tucked away from the Hummer stands etc down in the car show. We wouldn't want to upset any car manufacturers with talk of low carbon, responsible travel and the like. They might cry.
We heard from a number of really interesting speakers (didn't stop the chap next to me snoring and drooling, mind you). The best speaker I thought was Prof. Dr Jillian Anable, a research fellow at the Centre for Transport Policy, Aberdeen Business School, The Robert Gordon University. She and her colleagues has interviewed loads of drivers regarding their attitudes to motoring and the environment.
They found out that most drivers ONLY think about how much a car costs to run, not how much CO2 emits. That's just not a factor. Advertising doesn't help sell cars, but what it does do is cement brand loyalty. What car people bought was often a very arbitrary decision e.g. 'My friend said this was good.'
In terms of information that's available at car showrooms, people tended not to look at the fuel label, if indeed it was displayed. It really needs to be interactive, the researches concluded, and tell people what each car costs to run each week. This is the only thing that will stop most people buying gas guzzlers - that it's going to leave them penniless.
Another important thing to bear in mind is that 75% of cars sold are second hand, and these don't have to have any emissions data displayed on them. Indeed, as cars get less fuel efficient the more miles they clock up, this would be difficult to calculate. But with the govenment saying that they are going to consider starting to charge differential tax bands for older cars, it is unfair to do this without arming the consumer with all the information they need.
It is a massive task but it needs doing, both for environmental and economic reasons.
All in all, much food for thought.
And of course, on the way home I got to have a rare ride on the Docklands Light Railway, weaving its way through the haunting wastelands/soon to be Olympic village, which to me is what a ride in a Tesla is to someone else. I heart the DLR!
On the plus side, there was a Greener Driving section, with electric cars and even a new Tesla, the electric sports car that has just been manufactured. Sian was most impressed by this but I remonstrated that there was no room for a baby seat, much less a pushchair. Ever the pragmatist.
We also attended the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership 5th Annual Conference, which took place upstairs, well tucked away from the Hummer stands etc down in the car show. We wouldn't want to upset any car manufacturers with talk of low carbon, responsible travel and the like. They might cry.
We heard from a number of really interesting speakers (didn't stop the chap next to me snoring and drooling, mind you). The best speaker I thought was Prof. Dr Jillian Anable, a research fellow at the Centre for Transport Policy, Aberdeen Business School, The Robert Gordon University. She and her colleagues has interviewed loads of drivers regarding their attitudes to motoring and the environment.
They found out that most drivers ONLY think about how much a car costs to run, not how much CO2 emits. That's just not a factor. Advertising doesn't help sell cars, but what it does do is cement brand loyalty. What car people bought was often a very arbitrary decision e.g. 'My friend said this was good.'
In terms of information that's available at car showrooms, people tended not to look at the fuel label, if indeed it was displayed. It really needs to be interactive, the researches concluded, and tell people what each car costs to run each week. This is the only thing that will stop most people buying gas guzzlers - that it's going to leave them penniless.
Another important thing to bear in mind is that 75% of cars sold are second hand, and these don't have to have any emissions data displayed on them. Indeed, as cars get less fuel efficient the more miles they clock up, this would be difficult to calculate. But with the govenment saying that they are going to consider starting to charge differential tax bands for older cars, it is unfair to do this without arming the consumer with all the information they need.
It is a massive task but it needs doing, both for environmental and economic reasons.
All in all, much food for thought.
And of course, on the way home I got to have a rare ride on the Docklands Light Railway, weaving its way through the haunting wastelands/soon to be Olympic village, which to me is what a ride in a Tesla is to someone else. I heart the DLR!
Friday, 18 July 2008
Getting Pushy
Here I am pushing a 'Mundo car' (the clean car of the future) down Torrens Street in Islington. That's Jean Lambert, Green MEP nearest the camera. My Alliance Against Urban 4x4s colleague, Blake Ludwig, is inside the car, steering blindly!
It's all part of a campaign to encourage MPs and MEPs to push (push, geddit?) for low emissions targets for car manufacturers. We're asking them to commit to 120g/Co2 per km by 2012. There are cars out there doing that right now - the technology exists. However, there are also cars out there doing 3 or 4 times that amount, such as the biggest 4x4s.
It was great that Jean came along and supported the campaign. It's a Europe-wide initiative and the website is:
www.mundocars.eu
Write to your MP, your MEP and your local councillors and ask them to support lower emissions targets - the car companies aren't going to choose to make their fleets clean, we must force them to do so!
Think of it as a challenge, ye car companies!
Stop and Search - more like stop and stare.
I saw loads police conducting 'stop and search' outside Archway tube station yesterday. Teenage boys were having their turn-ups searched for knives and the like. They even had a metal detector to walk under - I saw two policemen struggling to carry the frame into position.
I actually felt quite sorry for the police. What a massive waste of their time. Talk about knee-jerk reactions! Last year we all were told to be paranoid about terrorists, now it's youths with knives. Or maybe guns. Though knives seem to be the biggy at the moment.
Now, don't get me wrong, it's awful that people are getting stabbed and killed. But yesterday figures were released that showed that crime is down. So why are we being bombarded with front pages about how we're all going to be stabbed any second? Well, because whipping the public into a frenzy is what the tabloids do best.
But when that frenzy extends to the police, and they are stopping random young people in the street - cornering them as they get out of the tube - then you know things have gone too far. Imagine being a young man of 15, being searched in broad daylight by two policemen. Onlookers stop and stare. People whisper that you look like a bad 'un. What do you feel? Resentment, panic and a swiftly developing hatred of the police.
It's the quickest way to turn a law abiding young person into a detester and an antagoniser of the police.
So what is the solution? Well, it's more complicated than packs of police outside tubes with metal detectors. Why do people carry knives in the first place? To seem tough. To belong to a gang. Because the music they listen to tells them that's what you do. Because they have no positive role models, no father figures, no one to show them right from wrong. Because they live in shit conditions, people have had low expectations of them from birth and they see no way but the wrong way.
These problems are huge and deep, and are hard to remedy. Easy to put some police on the streets, stopping lads in baseball hats and hoodies, and then we'll all say "That Boris, he's doing something good for London. We're safe now."
Bullshit. I think we need to address the real issues, not skirt around the subject and further alienate people from the police. Let's get people onto the right track when they're young, and help them to stay there, for eveyone's sake.
I actually felt quite sorry for the police. What a massive waste of their time. Talk about knee-jerk reactions! Last year we all were told to be paranoid about terrorists, now it's youths with knives. Or maybe guns. Though knives seem to be the biggy at the moment.
Now, don't get me wrong, it's awful that people are getting stabbed and killed. But yesterday figures were released that showed that crime is down. So why are we being bombarded with front pages about how we're all going to be stabbed any second? Well, because whipping the public into a frenzy is what the tabloids do best.
But when that frenzy extends to the police, and they are stopping random young people in the street - cornering them as they get out of the tube - then you know things have gone too far. Imagine being a young man of 15, being searched in broad daylight by two policemen. Onlookers stop and stare. People whisper that you look like a bad 'un. What do you feel? Resentment, panic and a swiftly developing hatred of the police.
It's the quickest way to turn a law abiding young person into a detester and an antagoniser of the police.
So what is the solution? Well, it's more complicated than packs of police outside tubes with metal detectors. Why do people carry knives in the first place? To seem tough. To belong to a gang. Because the music they listen to tells them that's what you do. Because they have no positive role models, no father figures, no one to show them right from wrong. Because they live in shit conditions, people have had low expectations of them from birth and they see no way but the wrong way.
These problems are huge and deep, and are hard to remedy. Easy to put some police on the streets, stopping lads in baseball hats and hoodies, and then we'll all say "That Boris, he's doing something good for London. We're safe now."
Bullshit. I think we need to address the real issues, not skirt around the subject and further alienate people from the police. Let's get people onto the right track when they're young, and help them to stay there, for eveyone's sake.
Sunday, 22 June 2008
A Victory - though not for the Ad men!
Following Friends of the Earth and the Alliance Against Urban 4x4s' initiative to make the car advertisers stick to the guidelines re: CO2 emissions info on car ads, we this week had some excellent news. Our persistence has paid off, and following our efforts the Department for Transport has tightened the laws, so that misleading the public isn't going to be an option any more.
I am not keen to celebrate too early, however - advertisers are already saying that this is simply a challenge for them - it may lead to some very clever advertising that gets round the law in dubious ways. Think back to when cigarette advertising was made to carry, in huge letters, the fact that, well, smoking and being cold in a coffin are somewhat linked. The ads became, shall we say, 'arty' with all sorts of subliminal messages going on. Of course, cigarette advertising has since been banned - oh, what joy if ads for highly polluting cars were also outlawed! After all, polluting the planet will directly lead to the loss of human life. Bring on the ban, I say.
I am not keen to celebrate too early, however - advertisers are already saying that this is simply a challenge for them - it may lead to some very clever advertising that gets round the law in dubious ways. Think back to when cigarette advertising was made to carry, in huge letters, the fact that, well, smoking and being cold in a coffin are somewhat linked. The ads became, shall we say, 'arty' with all sorts of subliminal messages going on. Of course, cigarette advertising has since been banned - oh, what joy if ads for highly polluting cars were also outlawed! After all, polluting the planet will directly lead to the loss of human life. Bring on the ban, I say.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
