Compressed digital video works by having occasional reference frames which are updated by changes. It seems to make sense to publish a reference frame on environmental matters from time to time. So here's my first stab. Comments, as ever, are welcome.

Animals go about their business and leave no rubbish. Whatever they do leave becomes nourishment for something else - microbes, plants or other animals. Humans, on the other hand, have become adept at adapting nature's resources to things that are somewhat less naturally recyclable, either because of their semi-permanent nature (plastics for example) or because they are mixed and, therefore, un-recyclable (silicon chips, mixed fibre clothing and so on).

We also pollute the land, the seas and the air, not to mention inland lakes and rivers. I use the generalised 'we' even though some cultures and individuals live more in harmony with nature than others.

Not only this, but we deplete material resources at an unsustainable rate in order to satisfy the perceived 'needs' of an ever-growing population. Oil, coal and gas are the obvious examples - millions of years to lay down, exhausted in a couple of hundred. Known sources of many metals we take for granted (silver, gold, zinc, tin, lead, copper and uranium etc) are all likely to become exhausted in the next thirty years or so. If the glaciers keep melting, then the hope is that new deposits will be discovered. Which will buy a delay, but the end result will be the same. A rising population and widening consumerism will see to that.

In case you were wondering, natural gas, iron, aluminium then coal will last longest. But that will change as we seek alternatives to materials that are being exhausted.

I sometimes watch television advertisements and they drive me nuts. The worst offenders try to get you into a new habit by inventing a problem you never knew existed and then offer you a 'cure' for the condition. Anti-ageing creams and health drinks, for me, are the worst offenders. It amazes me that anyone falls for it. I cringe in anticipation of the "because you're worth it" and "take care" payoff lines. But then I think, "What am I doing sitting in front of a television that cost God-knows-what in material resources and gobbles electricity?" The answer is the same for everyone else who has a television: it's a low-cost source of information, education and entertainment.

Cars are a low cost, comfortable and convenient way of getting from A to B. It's little wonder we're addicted to them. Incandescent bulbs (RIP) were a great way of lighting the home. We haven't got a decent replacement yet, although a 12 volt lighting circuit of LEDs might prove a good idea.

It seems clear that, if the human race is to survive and thrive, it needs to change its ways. It needs to become more in harmony with nature and to put a proper value on the raw materials that remain. And, indeed, to exploit them while we have them in order to build whatever infrastructure we need for the future.

Mostly, what I see is companies jumping on the green or cleantech bandwagons in order to make and sell new stuff which is going to make the world better after these new things have been bought. And, frankly, I'm not sure companies have a great deal of choice unless they are hit by legislation, loss of markets or shareholder revolt. Yet, paradoxically, these same companies are made up of individuals who probably do care about the future of their families. (I'm not even going to try and square that particular circle.) 

And governments, which require the taxes from companies in order to balance the nation's books (ha!), are hardly likely to welcome too much shrinkage of the economy. They could replace taxes with 'fines' but that's probably not an election-winning strategy. They have much to lose were they to put 'growth' into long-term reverse. Encouragement of the right things and the removal of red tape would seem the right way to go.

And consumers, the people who are persuaded to part with their cash for all sorts of nonsense, are not going to be in a hurry to consume less although they might be persuaded to consume more of the right kind of things and less of the wrong. Providing their pockets don't suffer. Or, at least, not suffer too visibly. The recent car scrappage scheme is a good example - with the lure of a £2000 bribe - a lot of old vehicles went into the recycling loop and a lot of new cars were sold at more or less full price: a win for the showrooms, the recyclers, the manufacturers and the UK vehicle maintenance infrastructure. For the consumer, the lure of getting many times the market value of an old car somewhat eclipsed the repayment schedule and the embedded environmental harm in the new cars. I fell for it, eventually, and consoled myself that I'd bought a fuel-sipping recyclable car from a greenish car maker.

We, in the so-called developed world, are all trapped by our desires for a comfortable life whether we're politicians, business people or consumers. We find it difficult to imagine or face up to the scale of change that's needed in order to give future generations a chance. Professor David MacKay (see my Inside Track) has become the government's advisor on energy. His brutal bottom line is that we (in the UK) need to cut our fossil fuel consumption by 90 percent. Can you imagine that? I'm not sure if he's been hired in order to genuinely advise or as a way of gagging him. Time will tell.

But, if we're to achieve that, we need to invest in alternatives energy sources sharpish and his book Sustainable Energy - without the hot air is eminently readable, online (free) or offline (£20 in paperback). Perhaps he could start a 'without the hot air' series, taking a largely impartial look at raw materials and pollution.

The more clearly the facts are laid in front of us, the more wisely we can make our individual choices. In the end though, we will make a single choice: exploit what's left as if there were no tomorrow (our present course) or find ways of living sustainably. The alternative, a sort of in-between approach, will merely delay our tenure on this planet.

If you were in the market for collaboration software, what would your reaction be if a major software publisher offered you an all-singing all-dancing suite of battle-hardened collaboration tools?

What if that publisher were IBM? What if it were Lotus? What if it were Microsoft? Bear in mind we're talking about the same set of tools, same quality in each case.

You have your preferences, right? And they have nothing to do with what's on offer. It's about perception of the brand. And that, as has been discussed exhaustively and exhaustingly, is an issue for a brand called Lotus. It can dance, sing, strip, do cartwheels and swing from a trapeze, but nothing it does will impress those who don't want to be impressed.

So why on earth does IBM persist in protecting the brand? Part of the answer lies in its existing base; let's not rock the boat for the 100M plus users. Part of it lies in a touching faith that the reality of the technical specs will trump the perceptions of the marketplace. As my colleague, Dale Vile, pointed out recently, the evidence suggests this is not the case. The respondents to the survey were readers of The Register, not best known for their love of Lotus, but this is the point - they are exactly the outsiders that IBM/Lotus needs to influence if it is ever to expand its market.

Let's forget any ideas of switching back-end servers and applications. If a company has Exchange and Outlook, or Thunderbird, or The Bat! (okay, I threw that in for good measure), then it's unlikely to change and, if Lotus ever thinks it will then its head needs examining. But some of the new Lotus offerings don't want you to switch anything. At best, it will run on your existing equipment and operating systems, at worst it needs a dedicated server - an appliance, in effect - and you don't need to fret too much about what's in it. Some of the offerings are provided as a service, so you don't even need to worry about installing, managing and updating the back-end, although you will still need to look after the clients.

You'd have thought that IBM/Lotus would be crowing about these things that don't depend on, let's say, a Domino server. You'd have thought it would be making the point right up front that the product is freestanding and can be popped onto a Windows or Linux server. But, no, it takes a while for non-Lotus folk to figure out just what can standalone and what has a dependence on a bit of Lotus-specific back-end stuff.

It's not like buying insurance, a camera or a car on the web. Some of these sites get you to 'radio-button' or 'check box' your desires and a shortlist appears, each showing its primary attributes. It's a matter of minutes to drill down to the product that best suits you. The Lotus site makes you drill and drill and drill. To give it credit, at the lowest level, all the information is eventually given, but finding it requires some diligence. You'll find no mentions of platforms on the Lotus product page unless you count the 'Collaborate in the Cloud' link to LotusLive. Drilling required. Click on 'Collaboration Software Products'. From there you can search by product category, product name or keyword. Since you're unlikely to know the names, then category seems best. Or you could use keywords. 'Microsoft' pulls up just two hits, Quickr and Quickr Content Integrator (team sharing tools). Following the latter reveals that it offers both migration from and coexistence with SharePoint and Exchange public folders. Hurrah! But this is hardly platform independence. More digging needed. And then, deep in the bowels of the documentation, is a list of platforms -including Windows.

When it comes to the Lotus Connections social software tools, once again no clues are given to its platform requirements. It takes a further seven clicks to reach the information you need. Lo and behold! it can run on two flavours of Linux and three flavours of Windows Server plus, of course, IBM's AIX.

At least with the Symphony page, it takes only one click to find out the platforms. But why is Lotus so coy about some of its products being multi-platform? A mystery, to be sure. Perhaps someone in Lotus would care to comment?

To summarise, we have a company here that wants to expand its user base into the wider world but it is, a) shy about telling us the information we need, b) makes it horribly complicated to discover, and c) hides the good stuff behind a brand that carries a lot of well-deserved baggage.

Given the company's irrational attachment to the Lotus name, here are some suggestions: 1) Improve the website, at least for the multi-platform and cloud stuff; 2) Make sure that the multi-platform credentials are at least hinted at on the home page. (Sure, it won't work with certain versions of operating systems, browsers, databases and so on, but this shouldn't affect the broad messaging. All it needs is a direct link to the detail.); and, 3) think about changing the name.

In view of the foregoing, may I take a leaf out of the politicians' book and suggest 'New Lotus'?

No, I thought not.