Priorities

Newsnight Friday
Newsnight Monday

Not too impressed. How predictable the choices of twofer. How flip the bouffant. How deep the doo-doo we're getting into. Some interesting posts, though.

I type as I watch Monday's GW/CC (they are different, I am told) piece on my PC (shame such a large chunk was missing for copyright reasons. It would have been interesting to see what the BBC editted out of an edit), with this morning's BBC Breakfast summary numberfest still ringing in my ears. Don't know about the EU, but our own bonny lads and lasses are gettting into a froth enough simply in Londonland.
Targets every year or 5, depending on who is in power and hence needs time to make sure the numbers 'fit'.
Sorting things out by 2050 (I rather thought the IPCC report suggested that may be a tad late, but there we go, it's good to meet a target rather than solve an actual problem when your index-linked is based on it).
There were the usual, if highly sensible, suspects.
When I were was a lad it was cycle to work, share a bath with a friend and put on an extra jummy.
They all still apply (except the bath one... just hope shower cubicles will be big enough for the new plan).
But now it's insulation - fully endorse that one, and in fact have suggested a plan of my own: here, bulbs and standby.
The last two also make good sense, but the details still seem a bit vague. And after the road pricing farce my ears get attuned to words like 'suggest', 'encourage', 'make', etc, especially when they morph into 'we'll fine you if you don't'.
Like 4x4s, these items were and indeed are on sale legally, and possibly even generate VAT in the process. So I do wonder who bears the cost of them being taken away and replaced which, in the case of bulbs, means swapping a 20p effort for a £3 one. Not to mention, in some more stylish cases, the fittings too.
Standby button offing is just plain common sense, but I stand ready to see how Messrs Philips, Sony, LG, etc, get on board with the UK government's plans, in the great global scheme of things. I guess they will, because they'll have to. But again, will that mean I have a salaried and pensioned army of red dot monitors turning up on my doorstep to demand I scrap my perfectly good old TV and buy a new eco-one, with no concerns as to the manufacturing costs in terms of enviROI? Even though I do get up and switch it all off at night at the socket?
Funnily enough, in the same slot it was announced that there was a German outfit about to build a new coal fired power station. But not to worry, its emissions will be... 'better'.
Now, I don't know about your domestic output and how close to a personal 20% reduction you're meeting, but it all rather paled into insignificance when some environmental experts were wheeled out for their 2p worth.
Tony Juniper of FoE was as helpful as a director/spokesperson of a major charitable corporation can be, but what did make me pay attention was the long-haired, but seemingly un-named individual who advised that 2/3 of the energy from our power stations is wasted.
Now, that seems quite a lot. Almost 67% in fact. And despite living and breathing this stuff for a while I'd never heard it before.
And vs. all the other stuff being wittered on about it seems, if true, to be something much more worthy of the talking head's attention in comparison to most I have had served up by our media of late.
For what it's worth, what our media and scientific community IS worth in terms of climate debate may be followed to some degree starting here.
It's an interesting discussion. I think my most relevant contribution as it applies here was this:
'I think I understand now why I get so agitated by science reporting these days. These guys are not required by a huge 'system' to allow anything trouble the viewer by way of loose ends. Hence with climate change: 'the planet is doomed... for this reason'. Period. Or, 'the planet is fine... for this reason'. Period. Nice soundbite. Nice headline. Nice ratings.
Not awfully helpful, though, when we're not too sure.'