Save the Humans

Samsung's Corny Phone

Just when you thought we had all the environmentalism we could cope with, Samsung creates a phone out of recycled corn. Or maybe the corn is fresh. Guess what colour the phone is? Yes you are right, it is green.

The packaging is made from 70 per cent recycled materials, including a soy-based ink, and the paper user manual has been replaced by an online version. The charger claims to consume 12 times less power than the Energy Star standard and features a visible notification to alert the user to unplug the handset once it’s fully charged.

It seems that most environmentalists keep their phone on charge 24/7 and never actually take it out of the house. This will be a great feature for them. For the rest of us who charge our phone once a week overnight, it might not help much.

Sadly, getting rid of the user manual is not a new idea. And the 300W computer that the user will likely use to download the manual might negate any benefit there. Still, while there are enviro-idiots in the world, why shouldn't a company exploit them with a silly gimmick like this? I know I would.

Bin City Blows $19m on Recycling in a Recession

What on earth is going on in the People's Republic? The council has purchased a company which processes recycling material that no one wants. The logic from the Deputy Mayor is very poor:

Christchurch Deputy Mayor Norm Withers said it was essential to bail out the company to avoid a "citywide disaster".

"If this were to cease, one could only imagine the chaos," he said. "There was a degree of urgency. We have a duty of care to the ratepayers of this city to maintain the collection of refuse."

There is a difference, supposedly, between refuse and recycling. But if no one wants the recycling material, why not just dump it? There is a perfectly good dump available at Kate Valley, which would last at least a decade. Then when prices improve, perhaps some other fool could be found to start the plant up again.

The company does not even collect the material! A quick re-route of the trucks and it would all be sorted.

The price for recycled newspaper had fallen from $210 a tonne last year to $80. Meta was unable to find a buyer for newspaper for the last three months of 2008.

Recycling as a business is dodgy. It seems that in a recession it is the first to go. Councils should respond to this by quietly dumping the material, not by putting up $19m of ratepayers money.

"Our cost of borrowing is less than Meta's, so we are confident that by restructuring the debt there are cost efficiencies we can make," he said. "We can operate it for three months with no cost to the ratepayer."

And no risk? Why can the state not understand the difference between a sure thing and a risky venture? If Meta cannot make money out of recycling, how can the council? A company cannot borrow incessantly to keep afloat, and neither can the council. Furthermore, the shareholders of Meta have taken a risk and should now be the ones taking a bath. A sensible approach would be to wait for someone else to buy the business, presumably offering less than $19m, and probably less than the $15m debt. That is capitalism. As a shareholder myself, well accustomed to baths, I can attest to the painful but refreshing experience.

The decision was made without consultation because the situation was urgent and commercially sensitive, he said.

Well the price of recycling actually started falling a year ago, so any urgency was at least predictable. But the point is that the wrong decision was made. It is clear from the remarks by Cr Norm Withers that he saw and investigated no alternative. If this is the quality of decision-making at the CCC then ratepayers are in for a prolonged bath.

The real reason for this decision is nothing to do with 'chaos' and everything to do with politics. The council has been berating the city's school children with 'reduce-reuse-recycle' for years now and it would be embarrassing to have a period, however short, where the recycled material is just dumped. That is the real reason why the council spent this money.

Sub-prime Banking Explained

Here is it, for those of you who still don't have the picture.

You Have Two Cows...

This is pretty old, but there is much truth in old things. I think it was Winston Churchill who said that Democracy is the worst possible form of government apart from all the others ones that have been tried.

CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.
SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes one of them and gives it to your neighbour.
COMMUNISM: You have two cows. The government takes both and gives you spoiled milk.
FASCISM: You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them, and sells you the milk.
NAZISM: You have two cows. The government takes both and then shoots you.
LIBERTARIANISM: You have two cows. What you do with your cows is on one's business but your own.
PROTECTIONISM: You have two cows. You can't buy a bull from another country.
WELFARE STATISM: You have two cows. You milk them and give them the milk to drink.
ANARCHISM: You have two cows. Your neighbour hits you over the head with a brick, steals your cows, then shoots them for fun. You later discover that he is a Nazi.
BRITISHISM: You have two cows. They are mad.
BUREAUCRACY -- EUROPEAN UNION: You have two cows. The EU pays you €1000 to stop milking one cow, and offers you double the market price for the other cow's milk.
NEW DEALISM: You have two cows. The government takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and pours the milk down the sink. The government insists there is a giant storage tank where all the milk goes.
POLITICAL CORRECTNESSISM: You are associated with two differently aged (but no less valuable to society) bovines of nonspecified gender. You don't milk them as you are not sure it would be appropriate.
SURREALISM: You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

Only in Revland

Yes you read it right: a reputable car company has turbo-charged and super-charged a 1.4 litre engine. This is bad enough. But what madness might bring a civilised country to purchase such a thing? Handing over real money for a this Frankenstein of cars?

The sensible thing to do would be to give the car a larger engine - say 2 litres or more. If more power is what you are after, a higher capacity is the quietest, smoothest, most fuel-efficient way of doing it. A tiny 1.4 litre engine, super-charged or not, is no to use to anyone at under 3000 rpms, and all the action is above 4000 rpms.

I am my no means an engine expert. I am sure that the Germans have produced something truly remarkable in the 1.4 TSI 160 PS (all those numbers - presumably the 159 PS didn't quite cut the mustard?) But here is the real question:

Why?

Yes, why would anyone bother trying to make a 1.4 litre engine more powerful when there are perfectly good 2 and 3 litre engines around with all the power you need?

Why would people want to drive to work at an average of 4000 rpm?

Why would a company actually advertise that their car has such a small engine, as opposed to hiding it in the small print like sensible crowds?

Why would anyone buy it?

The answer, of course, lies in environmentalism:

• The environmentalists who ensure that when you fill up your tank, 80% of the cost is tax
• The environmentalists who make everyone publish CO2 emissions figures even though no one else cares
• The environmentalists who tax you more because their car actually has an engine instead of the regulation-friendly rubber band
• The environmentalists who think a petrol head is someone who sniffs glue
• The environmentalists whose answer to everything is 'reduce, re-use, recycle'

As Jeremy Clarkson might have mentioned once or twice, a lot of car advertising is aimed at gullible middle-class enviro-guilt. This car is no different. 'So what' if it actually uses more petrol than a proper car because you drive everywhere at 140km/h and 4000rpm? 'So what' if you only actually achieve the CO2 emissions figures as you carefully manoever the car into your pokey little garage? 'So what' if your noise emissions are driving all your neighbours around the bend?

You have a crappy little car with an engine two sizes bigger than it looks. You are burning rubber and saving the planet at the same time.

So my new name for England is Revland. I have pissed myself laughing at these crappy little cars so many times.

Seldom has so much noise been made by so little cubic capacity to so inadequate a result.

Wake up United Kingdom, your enviro-government is laughing all the way to the bank.