Where there's muck, there's brass

There's a certain brand of journalism that consists of taking a press release from a company, jazzing it up a bit and using it as an article. It happens a lot, because it's very easy to do. I like to think I'm not susceptible to it, but one company that seems uniquely capable of pushing my 'Ooh, that looks interesting' button is Electrolux. It's bizarre when you think about it, because it's not a brand I would associate with innovation - yet they keep coming up with these press campaigns on innovative subjects. We've already had the (totally unfeasible, but joyful) kitchen appliances of 2099 and the 2050 hi-tech cooking surface. Now there's something very much of today - vacuum cleaners made from sea debris.

The idea is simple. According to QI (ahem), the biggest rubbish dump in the world is in the ocean - there is currently a vast amount of plastic debris sloshing about in our seas. Electrolux is planning to harvest plastic from six ocean locations (including the North Sea and the Med) and then to make from this debris 'a limited number of vacuum cleaners.' (Design sketch of how one might look below.)

Now in one sense this is purely a publicity stunt. It will be a fairly small scale activity, and certainly not commercially viable. The harvesting of the plastic will use different techniques dependent on location, from 'diving after it to scooping it from the waves.' The chances are such vacuum cleaners will cost a lot more to make than they could be sold for. But the idea isn't to start a new model range, it's to put them 'on display to decision makers and consumers as part of spreading the word.' So it might be a publicity stunt, but it's a potentially valuable one, and one that Electrolux deserves a pat on the back for.

The message is to get more plastic from manufactured goods recycled, and less of it ending up in the oceans. As Celia Nord, Electrolux's extravagently titled Vice President, Floor Care Environmental and Sustainability Affairs puts it 'This issue is much too important to leave to politicians.' Quite right. Clean up, Electrolux.

If you have the strong stomach required to watch corporate videos, here's the Electrolux take on their effort in shiny moving pictures:

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense

Search This Blog