I kind of suspect that all the 40,000 early subscribers were all advertising creatives and direct marketers…but they’re a legitimate audience too…

Looking to the future, if RM can maintain the integrity of this ‘channel within a channel’, then there’s absolutely no reason Royal Mail couldn’t create other subchannels on the doormat, which could be family-specific, and specified.

“Seedbox”? “Techbox”? “Storybox”? “Thinkbox”?

I just wish it were pillarbox red, not powder blue. This is potentially much more than just a neat gimmick. The decision really begins to chip away at the junkmail image of DM, an image much amplified by certain sections of the media, but not necessarily shared by the public.

Together with RM’s environmental initiatives, this “SurpriseMail” is a real step in the right direction, by gathering volunteered personal data…and invoking a form of augmented contact permission. The most intimate channel just got more intimate.

Their defence, the first of its kind, was that they had a “lawful excuse”. They were preventing even larger property damage from the climate change impacts of the power plant¹s emissions, they argued. The activists admit to trying to shut down the power station by occupying and painting the smokestack. However, they argued that they were legally justified as many places around the world are in immediate need of protection, due to the effects of carbon dioxide emission. For example, areas such as the Arctic Sheet and parts of Greenland (as well as certain areas here in the UK) are all at risk from rising sea levels.

The Kingsnorth power station emits the same CO2 levels as the world’s top 30 least polluting countries combined. James Hasen, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, who spoke for the defence, highlighted this by stating that the 20,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emitted daily by Kingsnorth could be responsible for the extinction of 400 species.

In these unprecedented circumstances the court has recognised that burning coal, still a significant energy source in Britain, is damaging to the environment and to property. Having used this argument as their defence, the campaigners have successfully defended their case.

The question which now presents itself is what legal precedent this court ruling will create for future action. Will other protestors now claim legal (as well as moral) authority to physically shut down energy companies under the same “lawful excuse” argument? And, given this outcome, will energy companies move to reassess the levels of risk which are associated with their current operating models?

In fact, a new court case against Greenpeace is already taking place. Sucor filed a lawsuit after one of the NGO’s activists went onto the company’s Aurora North oil sand site. How the verdict of the first case is interpreted as a precedent for this, and other, cases may lay the foundation for a new breed of public action in the name of climate change mitigation.

Glasshouse client LRQA sponsored the report entitled “Check-out Carbon” and written by the UK-based sustainable development charity.

Two-thirds of those surveyed for the report wanted retailers to act as their guardian in removing the most egregious products from the shelves. Even more (77%) wanted the government to set higher environmental standards while 85% wanted more information about product impacts.

The report analyses research from an independent survey of 1000 UK adults as well as conducting interviews with industry experts and focus groups.

The survey also lists a series of actionable recommendations for government, retailers, and manufacturers to take action on carbon labelling. These include focusing on material problems such as food waste and inefficient electrical appliances as well as those products with high impacts during consumer use. The report also suggests that carbon labels should aim to empower consumers by being placed only on select products at first and by supplying options not just information to shoppers.

Free copies of the full report can be downloaded here.