How many "Bags for Life" do you own??

I've been getting really pissed off lately with people handing me re-usable cloth bags, or "Bags for Life" as they're called. Every single fucking day at some "environmentally friendly" event they're being given out like confetti.

So I thought i'd write down some of my thoughts about what ever was wrong with good ol' plastic.

You buy some grub from Tesco’s and then instead of putting it in the bin you throw it in a hedge or the sea where it looks ugly and, worse case, chokes a turtle or strangles a blackbird. Now, the plastic bag isn’t the killer. You are. You’re the bastard who didn’t throw it away properly. But the blame gets put on the bag regardless. It’s a very easy target. It’s a poster-child for a society addicted to consumption.

Now if you had taken the bag home, used it for your sandwiches for a few days, carried your footy kit around a bit and finally picked up your dog crap and put it in the bin for it to go safely to landfill you would have
a) re-used an item lots of times (which is arguably way better than recycling) and
b) you will have safely ensured that the plastic in your bag (carbon) is safely sequestered (or locked in the ground) for a few thousand years.

So… the carbon laid down by ancient trees, which they sucked from the atmosphere millions of years ago, is back in the ground again. Pretty much no net release of carbon into the atmosphere. It really doesn’t matter what form that carbon is in the ground in (be it oil, coal, or plastic bag). The important thing is it’s in the ground and not atmospheric (like all the exhaust carbon and carbon from the burning of rainforests.

The problem we face is things like plastic bags are so light, so cheap and such a good return on energy, that actually digging up oil for cars and using the waste for other stuff (plastic bags, whatever) is a really sensible solution. One might argue. And one might also argue it's far more sensible than GROWING bags on scarcer and scarcer land.

{bear in mind these figures are guess work, i'll do the maths when i'm more bored)

Imagine worst case scenario you used 10 plastic bags a week. Fair? Each one weighs a few grams, so absolute maximum you’ve used a couple of kilos of carbon in the form of plastic bags a YEAR. And a bit more carbon in the ultra-efficient manufacturing process. If you have a car then each time you fill up you’re probably putting 30 litres (or kilos) of carbon in. I probably do that 40 times a year so immediately I’m using 1200 kg of carbon in my car. The carbon from the plastic bags is meaningless. Meaningless – as an example - from the point of view that people waste MILLIONS campaigning against them. They’re attacking the wrong devil in my opinion. They’re confusing the debate and I don’t think it’s doing the eco movement any favours long term. But that’s just a personal opinion.

So instead we are offered Jute/Cotton/Hemp bags… Or “Bags for life” as they’re called. Now each of these bags is grown on land that:
a) could be used to grow local food for local people.
b) it might have been a forest/bog/wetland till last week when someone decided that because in the UK we suddenly have a big demand for Bags for Life we need to grow more industrial textiles.
c) they’re grown in mass agriculture, so they instantly have a big carbon footprint (pesticides, fertilisers, water use, organic or not)
d) and they rot (eventually). And when things rot they give off carbon.

Now admittedly that carbon was taken in while the plant was growing but there is still a load of surplus carbon in the growing (particularly) and manufacturing processes. They’re also heavy in weight so shipping from India (typically) is expensive and carbon inefficient. I don’t know about you but I must have about 20 or more of the dam things now. This was surely not the point of them.

So even though the jute bag in your hand may only have plant carbon produced from sunlight and photosynthesis in it, it’s got a lot of waste carbon too. The plastic bag in your other hand will have a few grams of locked carbon in it, but importantly very little waste carbon. So which is better? It’s a tough call.

The problem as I see it is people whipping up storms about the wrong things when they should be campaigning about the things that really matter for the future health of the planet: forests & oceans mainly.

Even though plastic bags might accidentally and very sadly kill a few turtles, and there is a large floating mass of waste in the pacific, the thing that’s really killing our seas is commercial fishing and what's really killing our forests is our demand for cheap palm oil, soya and beef. We are dredging them completely clean of life, most of it wasted, and it’s a total tragedy. Against that level of destruction, plastic bags are nothing. Tell that to the Transition Town movement.

New dawn.

I have never looked forward to the 22nd of February so much.
In fact I have never looked forward to the 22nd of February ever.

But this year's different.

"The Impossible Project will present the status of its work on 22nd of February 2010 in New York - where Edwin Land presented the very first Analog Instant Picture publicly at the Annual Meeting of the Optical Society of America 63 years and 1 day ago, on 21st of February 1947. On this date he changed the world of Photography by announcing one of the most outstanding and successful photographic inventions in human history." (source: The Impossible Project)

We don't know the name. We don't know what it will look like (other than being black and white, courtesy of some help from Ilford) but I bet it will be bloody good.

Some things that were lost, do not have to be forgotten.

On the moving of giant stones.

I came across a really interesting blog the other day... and it wasn't about photography. It was about the debate regarding the huge stones of Stonhenge. Only I didn't know it was even a debate.

Like most of us I'd believed what I've always heard. Neolithic men - maybe some girls, but they were probably engaged in more life-sustaining activities! - trapsed off to west Wales, picked up some likely looking 'blue stones' and dragged them back to Wiltshire.

Hum.

Ever the romantic I've always believed in the endeavour and capabilities of ancient man. Partly because I object fundamentally to the derision they face when I hear how 'sophisticated' our flash-in-the-pan culture is. The disgust of modern man at the thought of sitting round a fire, hunting bison with sticks, and even contemplating life without an I-Pod is pretty insulting. On a side note I was talking to a Brazilian girl the other night over a few beers and she is convinced that the Conquistadors 'saved' the peoples of South America from a tribal, revenge-based, cannibalistic way-of-life. I didn't agree. Sure that's a small part of what they had, but they had been - presumably - happy for more than 10,000 years. What have they been left with? Displacement, disease, persecution, and death. Goodo.

Anyway, back to the Henge and those big stones.

There are two principle stone-types in that big field next to the A303: Sarsen and Blue. It's commonly held that the 50t Sarsen stones were dragged 25 miles and the 4t Blues were dragged - somehow, probably with sledge and boat - from around Pembrokeshire. This is all very well until you begin to think about the mechanics and feasibility of this. The M4 didn't exist and the A303 certainly wasn't there so who now fancies dragging a 4t rock more than 100 miles over what would have been dense woodland and mire? Even, and it's a slightly ironic 'even', dragging a massive Sarsen stone 25 miles over modern day Salisbury Plain would be a massive undertaking.

But there are precendents for giant, mysterious, ancient engineering projects and you don't need me to remind you where they are: Giza, Machu Picchu, Angkor Wat, to name some of the more famous ones. So why couldn't ancient Britons do something similar?

Well perhaps, because they didn't need to. Not if the stones were already there...

Our changing climate has been in the news a lot lately, but quite frankly it's always been the news. In fact it's always been the most fundamental thing affecting the distribution of humans on the planet. We are creeping out of an ice-age that last cloaked much of the UK around 10,000 years ago, but that wasn't the worse version. 250,000 years ago, or so, the ice stretched even further - perhaps even down to Cornwall, which is commonly reported to have escaped the creeping wall of water.

So, what if the glaciers had nudged up to, or even stretched beyond, Salisbury Plain? And what if they'd dumped some of their heavy load on the bare ground? Wouldn't that be the place to go foraging for nice rocks to make spectacular things for the Wiltshirians of old?

Whatever my spiritual ideals, ultimately pragmatism would have - must have - led these decisions. Sure, they could have traded something for the stones with the Welshmen. Cheese maybe? But that's an even more fanciful notion! It's quite clear to my untrained eyes that people of Dartmoor and Bodmin Moor used the resources close to hand, despite blatantly - in my romantic opinion - possessing advanced and inter-related spirutuality, of which we'll probably only ever be able to guess at. And we're probably richer for this ignorance.

So perhaps it's time we take - and by we, I mean glaciologists and their kin - a fresh approach to Britain's most iconic monument and explore the possibility of Pickford's Ice 'delivering' the stones to the doorstep of the builders of Stonehenge, perhaps even a couple of hundred years before they even thought about building it.

However they got them there it does nothing to change its timeless beauty and magnificence.


Read this blog for a nice introduction to the debate. It's by a nice chap called Brian.

(This photo is from Bodmin Moor. An ancient landscape, much inhabited, much changed, but the same.)

Future echo.

Hoax or reality?

I don't know what I thought as this strangely elegant, yet ultimately ugly camera jumped off the page. I hate the wood (or wood effect) but like the departure of Dubbya: it gives you hope. It has the classic lines of Polaroid, but we missed 20 good years of evolution - being served up only black plastic horrors and Spice Cams - so it's a hard vision to nail.

The twisting track that's defined Polaroid, or more broadly instant photography, has been a bizarre one in recent times. The news is guarded, the shadows lengthen. Will it, won't it? It's beginning to feel like a form of torturous pleasure. Maybe the horizon really is filled only with the limp blandness of digital, but that would be too horrible to imagine.

The church of Polaroid is a committed one; more vehemently protected and argued over than any other. And all that comes from entirely within her own ranks.

We have but one choice as I see it. Support anyone and everyone who is digging deep in their pockets to save the artform we love. If you don't like what they're doing, do something else.

I found this image here.

New year, nothing to say.

I've been living in boxes for some 6 weeks now. It's tiring.
The cameras remain packed away so I can't even tell something else's story.

But there are good people in the world. And the product of their goodness shall be unleashed soon.

Want your photo to be seen in Times Square?

Then enter this little competition.

More snow please.

This picture is a lie. It hasn't snowed yet.