Monday, January 29, 2007

You can see his lips move

I guess I was in a mood: At the heart of this fiasco is the belief that words equal action

"Walk vs. Talk

I couldn't agree more with the basic premise that government seems to have convinced itself that enough words will eventually achieve the same as no, or misguided, actions. With luck the voting booth will prove them wrong eventually.

I could not believe this morning's 'performance' by Dr. Reid as an example of this notion at its worst.

The Home Secretary seriously tried to get away with the situation he, his party and or government has brought us to with some daft home decorating analogy.

As the interviewer valiantly tried to respond in kind, let me add another. We are being expected to live in a property not fit for purpose, and have been for a decade, with it getting worse, and the current landlord's representative is trying to further paper over the complete failure of his superior and previous colleagues thus far to doing anything useful about it... by blaming the previous administration. Ten years to sort it out and NOW he thinks it's acceptable to talk about a spring clean!

And to the situation we are experiencing on the streets, he simply trots out stats and targets and other waffle.

He's a hard man, all right - hard to take seriously.

And it pretty much applies to every other area of government (and, to be fair, the other parties) as far as I can see, especially my main area of concern, the environment.

Guys, stop playing the media's game by gabbling nonsense to avoid being pinned down, and spend long enough to think and do something sensible. Even if it is 'difficult'. Then you may have something worthwhile to talk about. And retain some small semblance of dignity, along with the electorate's respect."


Slow can cost you

Oh well, at least only four people will read it.

I am afraid i got a bit ticked off with this: I'll take the slow road

I don't have a problem with people being rich. Or having eco-beliefs. Or indulging one with the other. But when it strays into 'I'm going to have a load of fun doing something most of you can't, and make out you could, and should' as the premise for a jolly, I see green (not envy, but a reddy-hued variety I reserve for the 'elite-set':

"I envy you. Have a good trip and more power to your elbow.

A whole year. Bliss.

I am reminded of a recent situation I faced. To support my free , no-consultancy-rates-here reuse website, (which, though the odd naughty adsense may sneak by, tries to avoid booking rather contradictory air travel or 4x4 ads) I still try to keep the finances flowing with my creative collective (ain't it great to get a plug in... a plus if you are paid to write, and even better sponsored big time to do so and supported by a major medium).

So there I was at a potential client's office. Being that they were in the eco-arena, I thought it enough that I'd planted a whole row of pansies along the back parcel shelf to offset, but no, she was not happy that, despite living but a few cities away, I had come to pitch in my R-reg Golf (car of choice for those who drive around the world I believe, and especially nice of a company like Shell to help -,,2-2119306,00.html).

So I suggested a solution. The trip I'd made took about 20 minutes; 40 each way. Should I work for them I would of course travel by public transport which, at best, would bump that figure to at least 4 hrs. So if they’d pay me an extra 2hrs of my time we'd call it fair.

She didn't see that working. And so I am not either. At least for them. So I guess I will be taking the lappy on the camping trip again this year. Unless I can make some big dosh on a climate-saving gig and then blow it on a real holiday. Or... maybe fund an ‘adventure’ to share with my green elite mates.

It's tricky, see. Feeding the family AND doing your bit. For some of us.

So while, like our D2AID2AIS (don’t do as I do..) PM, it may be ‘impractical’ not to fly, there are those whose travel decisions are a matter of more immediate and pressing choices to daily life. And it’s probably best for those of us luckier than such hard-working, lowly-rewarded types to spare them a thought on our travels.

Which I'm sure you'll do. Say hi to my in-laws in Singapore when you're there.'

Irony is I know his company, and have tried to hook up... to littel reply. They make a load of money 'advising folk' and doing their communications in the eco-arena. Obviously enough to take a bit of time off to enjoy the spoils.

Oh, and that Golf trip I mentioned (bad link - my fault - lop off the bracket and point). Guess who does the eco-comms for Shell?

What goes around comes around, I guess. I wonder if he'll pumb into other media-luvvy eco-types while en route?

Doing Good?

In listening to The Investigation, referred to in my last blog, I caught a trailer for another show, from Radio 4's In Business series, on Social Entrepreneurs. Kismet?

There were a few things of use in there, which is always a plus.

But there was some stuff that had me jumping up and down with frustration.

I hope I can get in touch with them to discuss this. I was able to download it, which is proving a great facility. As to the other show I think it is kept on archive.


Golly, managing this blog is almost getting as tricky as the site!

A few days ago I cited a report of a report, namely by a paper, about the Stern report.

And I was tweaked by a reader who mildly hinted that I hadn't read the thing myself. At 600 pages I doubt I ever will in its entirety, because a) no one could pay me enough and b) no one is paying me. But he did point at a few key areas worth a scope, which I hope to get around to.

Of course I may be falling into another trap of going where I am led, and away from where I could be, to try and steer my views, and hence what I in turn pass on.

Anyway, along the way I was also made aware of a Radio 4 show called the Investigation, and have just listened to it.

It seems pretty clear that a lot of what was in the paper was based on this. Again, editing and agendas can always come into play, but one thing I immediately noted was that the Stern Report based some of its hairier assumptions on, in turn, others people's work. And these guys are about as good as we're going to get for objective analysis for now. And they did not seem happy bunnies. In short, a couple, quoted by Stern, felt their work had been mis-represented. And that, I'm afraid, sets up all sorts of red flags for me, and establishes a basis for the kind of tainted view I referred to in my original opinion piece.

There was also a lot of economics theory in there that was way over my head, but I did pick up on a few points to pull things back the other way a tad. Mainly this was in the realms of 'worst case scenarios' being painted, and 'it not be as bad, as quickly.'

Well, I subscribe to the ad man's view that you promise low and deliver high, and that it seems better to start early to avoid a last minute panic.

Hence I will be interested to hear the ICC's report referred to. I just hope it is digestible!

FT - UK climate change costings 'too high'