Sunday, May 14, 2006
Well, more like 4.30am, but close enough...
I usually only buy the Sunday Times. I'd like to say this was me doing my bit for the planet by reducing paper consumption, but really I don't have the time and, as importantly, the cash, for a raft of dailies.
But yesterday I couldn't resist getting 'Metropolis' free (well, in the price of the paper), and was certainly not going to let the total investment in entertainment go to waste. And it has been good value.
For a start, I can add a little blog note having come across the following in the travel section:
'Climate Cost - Each week, Times Travel pays Climate Care a fee that goes towards green projects which compensate for the damage caused by aircraft emissions'
I don't know if it is the first, or indeed only regular (I have commented before on 'one-offs' that seem more cynical than doing nothing in some ways) attempt by a medium to address the impact its 'business' has on the environment, but it is certainly welcome and better than nothing. And goes a fair way to addressing my feeling like flipping the bird at reading finger wags from correspondents for all our wasteful ways, and then turning the page to find a bunch of staff from another section off to report on FurEX 06 in LA.
However, I remain slightly dubious about how all this works, from the costs to the mechanisms. £36.10 doesn't seem like much to plant the necessary trees (ok, investment in renewable energy is better, but even this is a rather dark black hole of obscurity to me still) or whatever to address the short and mid-haul flights of four writers. Plus I can't help but wonder where all this ends up. As regular readers know, I am more than concerned about the finite amount of land on this planet, the ever-expanding population standing on it, our increasing tastes for moving around it and the consequential further reduction in the planet's ability to sustain it all. The conclusion one come to in extrapolating such a very not complex equation is rather dire.
There are only so many forests we can plant, or wind turbines to spin to compensate. At some point, not doing it so much has to be the only option.
Anyway, on a more positive note I also stumbled across a very interesting piece by a regular contributor named Anna Shepard, who is dubbed the 'eco worrier'.
The piece itself was about our friends at ecover - Dish the dirt and clean up your act - but also had Ms. Shepard's blog link: Eco-Blog.
It's good. Not preachy, with a hint of eyebrow-twitch very like the style I hope to convey here when it comes to encouraging progress but reserving the right to question those who think they are qualified to talk down the average person trying to muddle along.
I know I have had not had much luck with mainstream media in the past, but I do hope to see if I can establish contact... and maybe see what synergies may be explored.
Posted by Peter at 5:15 am