Tuesday, January 16, 2007

Green and bear it?

This just in from the Green party: Rip up your Npower contracts!
No guys, don't hang back; say how you feel.
Actually, it's nice to see a line that isn't honed to PC-perfection for once.

As there's no link, the full Monty is below.

Wasn't Juice once available via Greenpeace?

Guess it isn't any more.


Green Party Principal Speaker Dr. Derek Wall today urged consumers to rip up their RWE Npower contracts, in light of the companies continued attempts to dump toxic fuel ash from Didcot power station, in Radley Lakes near Oxford.

Massive local opposition to the destruction of the last two remaining lakes at Radley has been ignored by power company RWE npower, and the decision to fill these lakes with toxic ash, despite opposition from Green Cllrs, has been rail-roaded through by Tory dominated Oxfordshire County Council, and subsequently backed by Ruth Kelly, Secretary of State for Local Government. (1)

In July, The Save Radley Lakes group handed in their own 11,500-name petition to npower at Didcot, and currently squatters are occupying an empty house at Thrupp Lake, as part of the protesters campaign.

Dr Derek Wall, Green Party Principal Speaker today said: "Despite concerns about pollution and flooding issues, and effects on the Lake's ecological and recreational value, Npower are determined to do irreparable damage to the environment and go ahead with their toxic waste plans.

"RWE npower Chief Executive Andy Duff claims to recognise the impact his companies activities have on the communities in which they work, and says he is 'committed to carrying out our business with a sense of responsibility.' (2)

"But Npower is behaving in a gravely irresponsible manner, ignoring the concerns of local people and experts. Clearly Npower's belief in corporate responsibility and environmental sensitivity go out the window when it comes to the crunch.

"Anyone concerned about the environment should not believe the hype surrounding Npower's so called green strand 'Juice', rather they should look to source their electricity from suppliers who put their money where their mouth is."

(1) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/5168232.stm

(2) http://www.npower.com/About_npower/Our_responsibility.html

Air Head

Lest I be accused of party bias in my coverage of the government and its officer's rather parallel perception of policy vs. actions (or, hypocrisy) in matters airborne, this may do something to redress the balance, if not one's faith in what exist beneath their skins: Planes, trains and the conscience of Tim Yeo

And though nothing to to with it specifically, and referring to another branch of government (reminder: those we pay for to lead us) I'll just add this one in for good measure as it is still pertinent: Rebuilding trust in civil servants

The person has spoken

I may be erring on a Mea Culpa here: Residents back 'gas guzzlers' bid

Whe it broke, I was not keen, and didn't like what was behind it. In mitigation, the background the survey is a little vague. Without being a research expert, or knowing how it was conducted, if one spent an hour in a council estate and asked all you met 'Do you think all those rich sods should flaunt their 4x4s?', maybe the results would be skwed a tad. Who knows? It wasn't asked. I guess BBC reporters live in North London.

I do note that 'a majority thought the extra charges for second car permits were "too punitive".' So having a 4x4 is bad, but driving two cars is good? Hmmn.

What is encouraging, and where I will go along, is where the poll suggests two out of three residents would consider changing to a cleaner car to avoid the higher charges.

Especially as these proposals differ from Chancellor Gordon Brown's transport taxes, which the BBC says (suprisingly up front I feel) have made money for the Exchequer without reducing emissions. These mean less revenue for the council, but lower levels of greenhouse gases.

Good news from the East?

It may not be Kyoto (maybe that's a good thing), but I'll deem it a plus: Asian states sign key energy deal

Not just spin... this is M&Spin

And so the game of who is greener, quicker continues between the nation's retailers. I think I will reserve personal comment a wee while until I have had a chance to digest fully the slew of 'stuff' being issued, beyond saying that something is probably better than nothing. I just hope it is all sincere. Certainly it will be interesting to see what happens to the missive I will soon be sending - again - to senior management in these organisations. Maybe some gatekeeper minion will not pop it in the 'oo-er, too tricky' basket this time.

Here's a small round up of the last 24 hrs:

AP via Forbes: M&S Aims to Become Carbon-Neutral by '12
BBC - M&S Rose goes green in pursuit of profit
Indy - Take a close look at the produce on offer
Indy - slight fly in the ointment, though I thought they were in earlier with 'something' - Tesco follows M&S with climate change move
BBC Newsnight - Ethical Man

I merely note for now that aims are always good, if vague. As is 'much of'. And while there is some cautious welcome from commentators across business and eco-disciplines, there is also a fair bit of... warranted... eye brow twitch ready and waiting. A lot of this, like Tesco a while ago (and again, here) is merely housekeeping to boost internal profits. Not much of real value to the consumer. I also take the point about lumping ethical and eco together to get some rather murky mix of what is 'good'. The question is for whom?

It's just not hockey

A little archive update courtesy of Dave from Solarventi, regarding the ‘hockey stick’ graph so loved by both pro and anti global warming protagonists a while back.

Keeping the pot bubbling was debate surrounding the apparent lack of a dip that should have been there to reflect the ‘little ice age’. He has forwarded a New Scientist article from November last year that effectively mirrors the same conclusions.

And so we fiddle on.