Single use or bags for life?

A new charge on single use disposable plastic bags comes into force today in Scotland, 5p per bag. It's been widely welcomed and we've had comments from Scottish Wildlife Trust and Marine Conservation Society on our headlines today.  Northern Ireland introduced the charge in April 2013 and bags have not been free in Wales since October 2011 which resulted in an 80% reduction in usage in the first year.

"80% of British shoppers used to put everything into free shopping bags. UK shoppers could go through as many as 60 bags a month. That’s 720 bags a year or more than 43,000 in an average lifetime!"  Carrier Bag Charge Wales website.

It sounds wonderful, decrease use of carrier bags, decrease the amount that is thrown away, decrease the number of bags flapping in trees, decrease the amount that ends up in our seas (and marine wildlife).  However, I am not sure it is entirely without its problems. Many people re-use their single use bags for lots of things particularly as bin-liners, in fact this was considered in a report by the Welsh government

"Impact of the charge on how people handle household waste Three in ten (30%) Welsh and more than four in ten (46%) Scottish respondents indicated that they do actively use Single Use Carrier Bags (SUCB) as bin liners, whilst 83% Welsh and 75% Scottish households [also] use purpose made bin liners. Prior to the introduction of the SUCB charge in Wales, 46% of Welsh households used SUCB as bin liners and 74% used purpose made liners. Therefore it can be seen that use of SUCB for waste purposes has decreased (by 15%) since the charge (although a causal effect is unproven), whilst the purchase of purpose made bin liners has increased."  Read the report in full (PDF)

It's this additional manufacture and usage of purpose made bin liners that concerns me.  At Tesco today everyday liners are 1p each, significantly cheaper than a 5p SUCB but they're made of new plastic, standard liners are 4p each again cheaper than SUCB and also from new plastic, the only small biodegradable ones are 12p each - more than ten times the cost of the cheapest. Many major supermarkets use oxo-degradeable / recycled / biodegradable plastic for their SUCB, so those which are reused as liners are more landfill friendly (can there be such a thing) although are less climate friendly*  than the standard liners and even after the introduced charge are cheaper than equivalent purchased options.  

Bags for life are not without their problems either, the energy and raw materials used in their production often far outweigh the benefits accrued during their life time. According to research by the Environment Agency (pdf here), a simple plain cotton bag needs to be used nearly 200 times to be less environmentally damaging than a standard SUCB, I couldn't find any figures for those plastic lined or coated heavy linen or woven ones.

Ultimately an overall decrease of use of plastic bags is the aim and perhaps simply breaking the habit of picking up a bag at the checkout will be enough to instill new behaviours and use of more sustainable, friendly alternatives along with a new or increased awareness of the issues surrounding energy and resource use and reuse.

So what do I use to transport my shopping? I grew up packing shopping into cardboard boxes carefully chosen from the heap by the door by my Dad whilst Mum was picking over the veggies.  So today I have two large plastic crates, each has been in use for over twenty years, they're fast to fill at the check out, slide easily into the boot, I don't worry about the bottoms falling out or handles breaking and if there's a spillage a quick rinse round fixes the problem. And for smaller purchases I have an old, patched, washed and repaired cotton bag from the local bakery, it must be about five years old and is used every morning to bring home the daily papers plus whatever small shopping (milk, honey, firelighters - the usual countryside mix!) is required that day.

Charging for single use bags is not perfect, but it's a start.  It's what happens next that will really make a difference.

Notes:
* Standard bags with a prodegradant additive use slightly more energy and materials in their production, starch-polyester mix bags are heavier again, use more ingredients and produce methane in their breakdown. From the Environment Agency report

England is still to introduce a charge.

What's in a name?

Does a baby's name affect its chances in life? writes William Kremer in the the BBC online News magazine.

It seems that CJS has always specialised in the less common names with our founders being Anthea (often addressed as Andrea and always corrected) and Niall (frequently referred to, even by himself, as Neil).

However, even the more frequently encountered names can be problematic, how many different ways are there to spell Amy?  Apparently multiple - ranging from Aimee to Ami and Tracey is frequently addressed without the 'e'.

I have an unusual name, my parents came up with Kerryn.  Both were teachers and every name one thought of the other had an associated naughty / bad pupil memory.  It was a family friend who actually suggested Kerryn, as an amalgamation of Keith and Carolyn.  It's been a blessing and a curse but it's me so I'm not changing; although I did disavow my middle name as soon as I could, and no I'm not telling anyone what it was!  I'm used to Karen, Kerry, Keiran and even on one occasion Kevin, I gently correct the error but don't worry about it, unlike my mum who gets all hot and bothered about people using the wrong name.

Blessing?  

Well it means I'm usually remembered if only because "you're the one with the odd name - what is it again?" .  Which also means that my name stands out on applications and paperwork and creates a feeling of familiarity because it's remembered boosting it to the top of the heap (with luck the yes heap!).  

It's human nature to associate words including names with memories. Having an unusual name means that you can genuinely create a first impression, a more regular one may already have a memory, an archetype or even a caricature linked to it. What do you think of when I say Vicky Pollard? or George Osborne (If like me you immediately thought of the Chancellor it's worth noting that he actually changed his name from Gideon, which would have been even more memorable and archetypical).

Today names are easy to find and histories checked, if you google me (I wouldn't recommend it, it's all really boring) you immediately find me, first page is all me (I just checked and it's quite scary being so easy to find) and some of it even leads back to CJS which is good for us. Whereas if you google Amy she doesn't appear in the first several pages of results.  Neither of us are particularly active on social media, if I was there may even be more results returned which is an even more worrying thought.  Which leads to....

Curse?

Well, because my name is so easily remembered (or at least recognised) and found.  If I'd posted anything embarrassing or incriminating it was there highly visible for all to see.  In the pre-IT era it was always my name that was remembered and then my cohorts got pulled in by association it's just that google makes it so much easier.

So why is this a CJS muse?

Mainly because of the ease of being remembered and found.  In our helpful hints we recommend cleaning up your online profile because the majority of employers, whether they admit it or not, will check your online status.  But until now we never thought about the ease of being found; that's not to say being Fred Bloggs gives you a license to post anything whilst Fiametta  Bassingthwaighte has to watch every word and image. Fiamatta could use it to her advantage by creating a unique positive online presence but Fred has to work that much harder to get his online content more easily found.

So do names help or hinder?

Probably both.

A how not to guide for recruiters and candidates.

This week the Huffington Post has picked up on a tweet from an applicant who has lambasted her potential employer for the rejection email she received, read their report here.

Unfortunately this is all too common although rarely played out on the internet for all to see.

Regularly we receive enquiries such as this from potential applicants which on first look would appear to be the right thing to do, all the advice on how to get a job says do your research.  However, from CJS’s point of view we only have the information in the advert, in other words the same as you and thus we must direct enquirers back to the advert and ultimately to the employer.
Of course it is right that applicants seek further information especially if the advert says apply by CV, you need more information to tailor your CV and covering letter to the post ensuring that you highlight the correct skills and experience for this exact post thereby giving yourself the best possible chance.  Background research and a demonstrable familiarity with the employing organisation is always an advantage when it comes to filling in application forms or at interview when answering questions and often a targeted question from an interested applicant at interview can be the one thing that tips the balance.
However, what is not so appropriate is taking the short cut and immediately emailing or phoning the employer, they may be a large organisation with an HR department which is able to spare the time and resources to answer all your queries but, especially in the countryside sector, just as likely they may be a smaller group unable to do so and your query could be diverting them from their 'real' work, exactly that for which they need the additional help.  In the case quoted in the article a full job description was available online and apparently found within a few minutes searching.  Yes, we appreciate that you may be applying for tens, if not hundreds, of jobs each week but likewise the employer may be dealing with hundreds, if not thousands, of candidates, do you really want you first impression to be a ‘lazy’ one?  Do your own research and then if absolutely necessary approach the employer; but remember many more general questions can be answered at the interview stage should you be fortunate enough to get that far.

We’re not exonerating the employer here either.  We all have a bad day but the tone of the email was not exactly the most professional.  Additionally, the information was available on their website, so why was the link not included in the advert?  Some advertisers place smaller adverts and want the candidates to find the information themselves deliberately including only the basics, however if advertisers are going to use this tactic they should have a standard, polite, response ready to reply to enquiries.  Keep the details and exclude the candidate from the shortlisting if that’s part of your criteria but do be prepared for multiple candidates asking for more information.

For this candidate it’s even more unfortunate that this ‘went viral’ her name will forever be associated with this failed application, a quick search for her and the Huffington Post report  is the fourth item on google.  Which brings up another consideration.  Before you post something think about the ramifications. Many, if not most, employers and agencies check your details online and something like this (or worse) is not what you want to be popping up on the first page of the results, and remember it might not just be your profile, have your friends got embarrassing pictures from last New Year?  Get those taken down too!

In conclusion neither party comes out of this smelling of roses but it does raise interesting points about the problems faced by both employers and candidates.

Holding back the flood.

Flooding in England, monstrous snow storms in America, overbearing baking heat in Australia and that's just in the last few months. I don't think anyone can deny (although some may try) that our climate is changing. The climate has always been fluctuating, never static, history recounts frost-fairs held on the Thames 200 years ago when the ice was thick enough to support printing presses, elephants and didn't melt under day long bonfires but then was warm enough for thin muslin empire line dresses in Jane Austen's time (think back to Pride and Prejudice) and don't forget the Romans had vineyards across the country as did many abbeys in the middle ages. You don't need the backing of mountains of data to accept these as truths or to understand that our climate is fickle, subject to many influences some of which we understand, some we've just discovered and others which are, as yet, totally beyond our ken. Climate change is constant but I question what proportion of that change is down to man's activities. As climatology is a relatively new science with only a very small dataset, in comparison with the scope of global climate in geological time, any predictions and forecasts no matter how complex the programme are only estimates based on what we know - which is relatively little. Thus, until time passes and can be proven with ever larger datasets, any conclusions reached must be understood to hold a large degree of error, however, this is not always the case, many are taken as absolute fact as if set in stone only to be disproved not many years later. In the sixties we were heading to a new ice age, in the late eighties it was a dust bowl and gardeners were told to plant gravel gardens and desert plants, now Waterworld? Man has certainly added to and changed the gaseous environment but to what extent? Enough to cause the cataclysmic events of the past year? I don't believe so. Neither do I believe that man’s impact since he first set foot on the planet has had a major role in shaping the climate, environment - yes, individual ecosystems - definitely, local microclimate - possibly but not enough of a significant impact on global climate to have made sufficient difference to alter the course of our changing climate to a detectable degree.
What I do believe is that we've wasted decades trying to stop the inevitable by reducing carbon emissions, cutting methane, making energy efficiency measures compulsory to reduce emissions (energy efficiency is generally a good idea but we're approaching it from the wrong standpoint - and that's a whole different blog or should that be rant?) when what we should be doing is to prepare. Getting ready for longer, colder winters and longer, more severe wetter times (whenever) and drier periods too, instead of investing in emission reduction we should be using technology to ensure that our homes, work places and lives in general are fit to withstand more snow, more or less water, greater extremes in temperature. Working with the land instead of against it making use of centuries old techniques that have been proven to work with our predominantly man-made landscapes; with people helping them to understand why they should use the best methodologies possible instead of enforcing them through pointless decree; with business to encourage sensible long term solutions of redevelopment, of not building on flood plains, looking at use of permeable hard standing; with innovators to consider ways to deal with wide ranging temperature, water storage and flood prevention, not to mention ensuring longer term food sustainability.
So stop being Canute and be more of a Da Vinci, Newton, Einstein or even a Dyson!