Friday, September 07, 2007

A blonde. A cause. A new book/film/TV series.

I'm kind of losing count of how many Estuary blondes there are on the roster, but the more they crank out the more causes can be found. And as Green is the new 'du jour', so another I have to try and figure out gets launched on the box.

This one is something like Future Friendly, and will need tracking down as I don't recall in the slot much else before we moved to the real point: the 'goss..

Actually the blonde plugging (who showers and doesn't bath, apparently. Which is nice) tried gamefully to get back on the subject a few times, despite the blonde asking doing the usual 'so you have a cause? Well, great, now about the film and what was it like to lick Tom's...'

At least it's not their job to trivialise such an important issue.

ADDENDUM - Didn't take long...

Guardian - Future friendly? - Just guessing mind, but even they don't seem quite as enamoured at the Gaurdian as do the BBC. Remind me again, whose job is it to report the news and not....

Is the best default they have 'let's have a thing and get celebs along to talk about it to raise awareness 'n stuff'? Again?

Is this the same one I saw Tamsin Outhwaite promoting on, I believe, the BBC? That would be the BBC who is not in the business of... [fill in here]? And certainly not to trivialise huge issues in the name of celebrity ratings fests.

At least she tried to stretch to a few things about helping the planet in (she doesn't bath, apparently. Showers only. Which is nice) before she and her blonde oppo got into her new book/play/series/whatever, which, I must say, seemed to be what all parties present seemed really more interested in.

Sleeping Partners?

Or strange bedfellows? Ok, enough of the bed metaphors. Well, one more. I don't really care who hooks up with whom and will sleep easier so long as the intent is genuine and the results tangible.

Much has been made of Johan Eliasch's move (note: I'm pretty sure they mean 'donate' and not denote in the write-up) from Tory to Labour camp, and as is they way with the navel-gazing, feral beasties of the Westminster Village the environmental issues have taken second billing to the 'defection'.

But if... big IF... this means a guy who does seem to be smart and committed gets to whisper in Mr. Brown's ear then it looks a pretty good thing. If... Mr. Brown listens.

It will be interesting to see how this trend for multi-millionaires advising political leadership on motivating the masses in matters green pans out.

In this case, as I have always seen merit in Cool Earth as a quick, big fix (well, delay), I am hopeful.

BBC - Ex-Tory donor to be Brown adviser

BBC - A welcome hand - to which i added this above, with a couple of additions:

But if... big IF... this means a guy who does seem to be smart and committed gets to whisper in Mr. Brown's ear (rather obvious point about talking in opposition vs. doing in government taken) then it looks a pretty good thing. If... Mr. Brown listens.

It will be interesting to see how this trend for multi-millionaires advising political leadership on motivating the masses in matters green pans out. The whole jet/offset thing is a pity, as the concept of buying off excess shouldn't be allowed to fly, but I guess I can live with it so long as Mr. Eliasch doesn't end up on air at every stage telling us what to do even though 'it would not be, like, you know, practical for him not to'.

In this case, as I have always seen merit in Cool Earth as a quick, big fix (well, delay) after the Newsnight piece, I am hopeful.

Will they walk the walk ......

..... as well as they talk the talk?

This rather interesting snippet from which reports on Robert Olson, Chairman of ExxonMobil no less, speaking in Aberdeen about "the need for innovation in one of the most contentious issues affecting the offshore industry – climate change."

"Describing how ExxonMobil is taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, he stated that the company is supporting breakthrough technological research to help 'reduce the 'gap' tomorrow'."

As a major financial supporter of research to fund the denier's side in the climate change debate, this strikes me as almost a case of the leopard changing its spots.

I guess we'll have to wait and see just how this plays out.

Biting both ways

I am still engaging, perhaps more than is good for my RSI, with Biased BBC. They do seem to catch some howlers worth noting. As a check and balance they can be useful in highlighting errant reporting.

However, I can also see how a small drop of ink can stain a large bowl. Hence a comment of global warming, and its reporting (or, in this case, as I felt it, not), required a reply:

I also came up with some more bon mots I like:

PPCC - Person-produced climate change

MWCC or PPPCC - man-worsened/Personal-pollution promoting climate change

A virus comes to Europe and it's all the fault of global warming.

I am still on a steep learning curve (which I suspect will soon be near vertical), so forgive my remaining unsure on certain factual aspects of this issue.

There's climate change (which I believe most accept is happening. And, probably, for the worse (definitions vary, and indeed death tolls can be skewed in historical comparisons by virtue of there being more people on the ground to cop a natural disaster. Equally perceptions, as there are A LOT MORE reporters on the ground to capture every terrible moment).

Then there's global warming. Which to me is not the best term because while most 'stuff' is getting laid at its door, and it seems a convenient if broad way to refer to an overall trend, on a local and day-to-day basis there's an awful lot that is cold and wet. So I wish it were not used so much, or as it usually is. Especially by BBC reporters, if it was used in such as the Scottish radio report (and I must confess I did not see it in the mosquito piece).

So let's move to man-made (sorry to be un-PC (Person-produced?) climate change. This seems to 'accept' that the activities of man are pretty much responsible, exclusively, for the whole deal. In astronomical and geographical terms, especially considering the forces involved, I find such an absolute unlikely. And I don't think it has yet been proven. So to use it would seem... premature.

Which brings me to my own, favoured, definition: man-worsened (Personal-pollution promoting?) climate change. This is the area where the fun seems to be, if you enjoy mutually dependent extremes such big oil funded 'deniers' and 'activists' en route to endless conferences in Bali knocking spots off each other with single statistics and lone hyperlinks.... fun.

To nail my colours to the mast, I'm still floating in the middle, erring on the more 'green' corner, if only because rationally I can't see that bazillions (and counting) of folk polluting (emissions always seems so coy) away on finite ground and into finite air space cannot but have an unhappy end point. So, speaking of points, I figure maybe it's best to consider the tipping one a tad more proactively before it's too late. In this case 'I told you so' to the do-nothing brigade will be of little comfort to me or my kids. Conversely, they may not feel being wrong to be a huge problem in the great scheme of things, so it’s a lose-lose.

But it's all very complicated made more so with, in the modern world, democratic institutions populated by those more interested in process than product, and now near paralysed by the power and extent of media (new and old) and its ability to sway the masses. There is not a statesperson amongst them and, probably, even if there were, the moment they tried to do anything radical based on sincere beliefs, the ratings whores would ensure they were hounded out before you could say 'ist', ‘inger’, ‘zi’.... or 'tomorrow's headlines'.

So we're down to information, education, and, where possible (yawning chasm in there), persuasion. And as I like winnable wars, I’m a big woos by sticking more to doing something about reducing waste and leaving the waaaaay bigger issues to braver folk. I just ask that they don’t get tempted to cut corners doing what they think is best for me as my experience is that, even if it is (which it may not be) getting caught out negates and often pushes things further back.

I have to say that in this case, having read the piece, I was more simply educated and informed about a fact of biology that by my own extrapolation is likely to attributable to climate change.

No more. No less. But the additional info is appreciated, thanks.

Equally the subsequent fact (forgive me for now having to let it remain as un attributed and unconfirmed, though it sounds convincing) from Archduke on sea levels.