Consequences

On another thread, in a blogosphere far, far away, I (well as part of a catch-all pejorative grouping) have been accused of trying to get someone fired.

Suffice to say that, by pitching in and asking some questions (as I tend to do when I get interested in the topic), the failure to answer these adequately has put a professional person/entity on the spot. And such is the unfairness of corporate life, there may be a consequence for those who least deserve it to save the skins who deserve it most.

And it's kinda interesting, as the very same outfit who seem to playing the 'poor person' card to deflect criticism (which really only works against them when it's still their scummy systems that make it work out that way) seem to think nothing of making dirty great big, and often woefully ill-informed, statements that can seriously impact the careers and lives of an awful lot of folk. Without so much as a moment's thought.

What inspired me to this train? This: No Job, No Carbon Footprint

Just check this bald statement: Forget environmental taxes - the coming recession will help sweep away a ton of unnecessary consumption quicker than you can say the words “mass redundancies” and “soaring repossessions.”

Note this also please, especially any who may recall what I have banged on about for, well ever: The only areas of the low carbon emissions market that resemble defensive plays are insulation and draught proofing. While these technologies have a payback period of under 4 years they make few appearances in the Power Point presentations Silicon Valley based alternative energy start ups make to the investment community.

What... saving the planet effectively isn't sexy enough????

Actually, this piece is all about the fallout to those who have decided to make a career in green.

I was thinking more about those in other industries; the kind my boys may want to join. Is wanting to be a pilot a smart call now? Or ski instructor? Just killing the air industry will trash, by some estimates, 10% of the the world's economies that depend on tourism. Where do 600million people go to get the alternative job?

No one said it would be a simple deal, I guess.

I'm just glad my little niche is working with the system to help save the planet and avoid waste... plus, with luck, making a decent career out of it.

So... does that mean I should stop asking questions?

No.. I thought not.

BIG question

'Do politicians have the answers to climate change?'

Well, Newsnight did ask:

It's a bit like saying do they have the answers to 'the weather'. So in this more balance-aware age it probably should be more like 'Could politicians have the means to help mitigate mankind's possible/probable negative influences on climate change?', but I think we know what you mean.

And the answer is, of course.

The only small problems are the democratic electorates with near zero trust that most institutions who would claim to serve them - government, business, media, activist groups - will tell them what's going on without spin, career-advancement, profit or self-interest put first to cloud any rational efforts to address the issue.

Or, if that can be surmounted, have the skill sets in place to communicate anything to people in ways in which they can rationally engage in this day and age.

So... with Clintonesque troofamism, that's an 'affirmative, though enhanced by variable qualifiers to leave the answer to the question sufficiently obscure as to be anything and nothing all at once'....'cos staying in power is really all that matters.

I shall look forward to the results of the poll, but have long expressed concerns by the twofer style (even if it is this time 'focus groups') of getting to anything meaningful in debate.

I am sure for the benefits of ratings, the groups of sceptics and believers will have been selected in advance for the 'richness' of their views.

The trouble with such adherence to entrenched warfare entertainment is that the two extremes get so comfy where they are, surrounded by their mates firing rounds over the horizon and hoping for the odd hit, they forget what they are doing to everything that lies in between.

So usually the only winners in such events are the carrion crows who feed off the carnage they have orchestrated just for the meal of the day. For tomorrow is another headline.

Am I willing to pay more in green taxes? Yes, so long as they are clear, fair, spent where I can see the benefit (not endless quangos and unproductive administrators), have genuine enviROIs, are not just to meet some target, and will make the planet a better place overall for my kids by being imposed.

Will environmental policies influence the way I vote in a general election? Yes, but nothing the current shambolic collection of half-considered knee-jerks, crowd-pleasers and spinmeisters I've witnessed to date have managed to put forward anything to move me beyond 'none of the above' as yet. More's the pity.

Please let it be an interesting, worthwhile session, and not another producer's wet dream that leaves me disappointed again, and Mother Nature with a tear in her eye.

And if by some miracle it does arrive at some consensus and answers without collapsing into another 'tis/'t'isnt 'BigOil funded deniers' vs. 'Hairshirt and ignore the realities of 6B and growing populations', please to the heavens may they be in the form of tangible, worthwhile things that can be DONE, and not just yet more airwave fodder in the form of meaningless WORDS.

I guess I'm looking forward to it:)

ADDENDUM: I hope someone may one day hire me. I was pretty much bang on with all I said above, and have been banging on about for the last few years

[I sent that yesterday in response to the pre-show email. Didn't seem to make it for some reason]

I've now watched it. And I was wrong. At least about the extremes. This was a very polite, reasoned group. Good on 'em.

However...

I was a tad concerned about the research methodology on display. We had 30 'sceptics and deniers' moderated by a guy who says 'I'd rather die of heat than eat less meat'. Sets an objective tone? Not. As was, frankly, his leading the public hands up (which is why we have secret ballots) with incredulous commentary: 'Look... we ONLY have...'.

So I was expecting polarised views. Which is, to an extent, what we were served. But initially from only about half a dozen respondees, over and over. It expanded a bit more when things hit politics, but not by much.

And speaking of politics, why were we served visuals of, and choices between just Brown and Cameron? With, by way of bizarre 'balance', a sole Lib Dem spokesperson in the studio to respond afterwards?

The qualitative trends were interesting, but no more considering the nature of the group.

I was surprised at the high score for HRH, especially from the sceptics, because as examples go his record offers them some pretty good ammo, and certainly better than Mr. Huhne's odd proxy mea culpa for Al Gore.

Post Live Earth and pre Planet Relief (RIP), the BBC must be heaving a sigh... of relief how the cult of celebrity was viewed. (Please note all who just fancy setting up a party in the Green Room with your favourite soap star... er... in the name of awareness).

I was surprised at the consensus on the activist approach. Though it does at least show that guilt and hectoring are no more useful in the persuasion stakes across the board than fines or nanny state lectures.

I was also surprised to see Mr. Branson (if oddly deemed, at least to me, typically representative of the corporate sector) not better received. But then, opening with the notion that alternative fuels are going to solve everything (if showing how a selection of footage or edit can steer things) is not quite the 'reduction' response you'd expect a guy with travel as his business model to come up with. ADDENDUM - Just added a pic of a Virgin ad: fly to New York to shop. About covers it, I think.

And so the polster rounds up with 'Is climate in crisis... we're not sure.' That's quite a claim. based on 30 'we's'. I think most politicians are. I think such as the IPCC are. I think RealClimate is, etc (cue a raft of those who are not...).

So if as he says, 'we' are not, ... why not? And how do 'we' get motivated to act to help in mitigation?

As the topic of the piece it seems clear politicians don't have the answers, possibly, as JP said ' [They] just don't believe you'.

Which is, if others of us also don't, a bit of a problem.

Don't know about a dog's name, but it is its dinner.

Newsnight - Give a dog a bad name

Whatever it's called, please make sure it's kept virtual.

A pet purchase on the day you discuss the consequences of climate change measures may prove... interesting.

As long as it lasts:
VOTING ON CLIMATE CHANGE
Do voters really care about climate change? US pollster Frank Luntz organised a focus group to see
Watch the item

Guardian CiF - What will it take to convince people?
A variation on the above:


GiGo.

To ask if politicians have 'the answer' to climate change a bit like saying do they have the answers to 'the weather'. So in this more balance-aware age it probably should have been more like 'Could politicians have the means to help mitigate mankind's possible/probable negative influences on climate change?', but I think we know what was meant. For me it just became a bit less than effective as the various deaths by a thousand cuts took their toll on the process.

The simple answer is, of course they have.

The only small problems are the democratic electorates with near zero trust that most institutions who would claim to serve them - government, business, media, activist groups - will tell them what's going on without spin, career-advancement, profit or self-interest put first to cloud any rational efforts to address the issue.

Or, if that can be surmounted, have the skill sets in place to communicate anything to people in ways in which they can rationally engage in this day and age.

I looked forward to the results of the poll, but have long expressed concerns by the twofer style (even if it is this time 'focus groups') of getting to anything meaningful in debate.

I am sure for the benefits of ratings, the groups of sceptics and believers were selected in advance for the 'richness' of their views. Having watched it my fears about extremes were misplaced. This was a very polite, reasoned group. Good on 'em.

Because the trouble with the media's attraction to entrenched warfare entertainment is that the two extremes get so comfy where they are, surrounded by their mates firing rounds over the horizon and hoping for the odd hit, they forget what they are doing to everything that lies in between.

So usually the only winners in such events are the carrion crows who feed off the carnage they have orchestrated just for the meal of the day. For tomorrow is another headline.

The two main questions were: 'Am I willing to pay more in green taxes? My ans: - Yes, so long as they are clear, fair, spent where I can see the benefit (not endless quangos and unproductive administrators), have genuine enviROIs, are not just to meet some target, and will make the planet a better place overall for my kids by being imposed.

Then: 'Will environmental policies influence the way I vote in a general election?" Ans: Yes, but nothing the current shambolic collection of half-considered knee-jerks, crowd-pleasers and spinmeisters I've witnessed to date have managed to put forward anything to move me beyond 'none of the above' as yet. More's the pity.

However, I was a tad concerned about the research methodology on display. We had 30 'sceptics and deniers' moderated by a guy who says 'I'd rather die of heat than eat less meat'. Sets an objective tone? Not. As was, frankly, his leading the public hands up (which is why we have secret ballots) with, as you noted, incredulous commentary: 'Look... we ONLY have...'.

So I was expecting polarised views. Which is, to an extent, what we were served. But initially from only about half a dozen respondees, over and over. It expanded a bit more when things hit politics, but not by much.

And speaking of politics, why were we served visuals of, and choices between just Brown (looking forward to his big climate ideas at the conference) and Cameron? With, by way of bizarre 'balance', a sole Lib Dem spokesperson in the studio to respond afterwards?

The qualitative trends were interesting, but no more considering the nature of the group.

I was surprised at the high score for HRH, especially from the sceptics, because as examples go his record offers them some pretty good ammo, and certainly better than Mr. Huhne's odd proxy mea culpa for Al Gore.

Post Live Earth and pre Planet Relief (RIP), the BBC must be heaving a sigh... of relief how the cult of celebrity was viewed. (Please note all who just fancy setting up a party in the Green Room with your favourite soap star... er... in the name of awareness).

I was surprised at the consensus on the activist approach. Though it does at least show that guilt and hectoring are no more useful in the persuasion stakes across the board than fines or nanny state lectures.

I was also surprised to see Mr. Branson (if oddly deemed, at least to me, typically representative of the corporate sector) not better received. But then, opening with the notion that alternative fuels are going to solve everything is not quite the 'reduction' response you'd expect a guy with travel as his Galactic business model to come up with.

And so the polster rounds up with 'Is climate in crisis... we're not sure.' That's quite a claim. based on 30 'we's'. I think most politicians are. I think such as the IPCC are. I think RealClimate is, etc (cue a raft of those who are not...).

So if as he says, 'we' are not, ... why not? And how do 'we' get motivated to act to help in mitigation?

As the topic of the piece it seemed clear politicians don't have the answers, possibly, as Jeremy Paxman said to one:' [They] just don't believe you'.

Personally, I think we need to look at the current crop of messengers because, for all their efforts (and money spent), not many seem to be getting the message.

Guardian - Can politicians solve climate change?

In the spirit of recycling, I'd answer the question as I did when it was posed on Newsnight and referred to on these very pages:

To offer a short answer from this it is, of course.

The only small problems are the democratic electorates with near zero trust that most institutions who would claim to serve them - government, business, media, activist groups - will tell them what's going on without spin, career-advancement, profit or self-interest put first to cloud any rational efforts to address the issue.

And having popped back to look at my blog I find it rather telling irony (and annoying) that Google have plonked an ad on my post... from a Washington Lobbying Firm.

Wind power growing fast

An interesting report on Europe's wind power industry from Business Week.

It seems that the booming wind power industry has already inspired a series of takeovers and acquisitions, as global businesses rush to be able to state that they have renewables as a substantial part of their portfolio.

And of course, there are some interesting financial incentives too .....

"While investment in wind farms helps cut the carbon footprint of European energy companies, there are also significant financial incentives for going green. Under EU and domestic rules, utilities can charge higher rates for renewable electricity, either through government-mandated prices for end customers or so-called renewables obligations, which reward companies for building carbon-friendly power plants."

Let's just hope that the big boys involved don't take their eyes off the enviROI of each new project, and ensure that it is a) in the right location b) actually worth doing and c) not simply a cash making exercise.

Two for one deal

I'm quite happy to recommend RealClimate as a pretty good place to go if you want some info on the science behind the variosu excitements that hit the headlines. Now they have offered up another source in Nature.

I quite like their style.

Or...

Let's use less and reuse what's left.

This is the new version of what we'll be getting us down the the bins in our hordes soon.

The campaign created by the Greater London Authority and funded by the London Recycling Fund has enjoyed great success in London. It features the instantly recognisable packaging of well known brands with the brand names substituted by the recycling message ‘Let’s Recycle More’. There are four executions in total, for glass, metal, plastic and paper, to encourage people to recycle more materials, more often.

I can't help but wonder if a bit more going first into the places where such as plastics can go, clearly identified and designed for ease of putting what's appropriate where it will do the most good, might not be better order of business priority-wise.

Then we can get to the creative of motivating people to do it. Though... don't know about you, but that one there hardly makes me feel the urge.

How green are my wheels?

I've just had a press release advising of the launch of WhatGreenCar.com

At first glance this looks a very worthy addition to the the consumer's information grab bag of sites on matters green.

What I do like is the scope - ratings are based on a database of over 16,000 cars, frequency - updated every two weeks, recognition that apples and oranges may make a good fruit salad but a poor car comparison - identifies the Top 10+ green cars in each class and extent - they claim to be the only green car website to give an environmental rating for all new cars based on the life cycle impacts of eight emissions including carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulates, plus also assessing the emissions associated with a vehicle’s use and manufacture.

Which, I do note is, 'Unlike the government's new ranking system, which only assesses CO2 exhaust (tailpipe) emissions'. Makes you feel great about the guys in charge, eh?

Speaking of which, I have written to them in hope we may find synergies, whilst pointing out areas we get sniffy about here, such as 'electric' getting morphed into 'non-polluting' without qualification.

But they seem like our kinda folk.

ADDENDUM:

Just had a most pleasant and informative chat with the guy behind it all, Dr. Ben. As knowledgeable as he is measured. I had a few misconceptions put right, for sure. Won't stop me cocking an eyebrow at what I get served up from the green auto industry, but I might well feel the need to bolt on a 'check it out here as well' caveat. There's a little knowledge and there's dangerous misdirections. What he and I did agree on is that it IS very complex but, unfortunately, needs to be made very simple for people to grasp the issues enough to respond rationally.

That, is a very difficult line to walk... er... drive.

Brand Republic - Carbon warnings on car ads

Getting IT?

Fancy finding out whether your iPod can come in any colour BUT green? Here you go: The Greenpeace Guide to Greener Electronics.

Now, how many trendy types in businesses are going to ditch their Bad Apple Macs? Come on, now... be honest.

What we really need now is a logo, too.

But seriously, at least a slap like this may perk 'em up a bit.

Minister calls for greener Government IT

Better late than never. They will publish their initial report in 2008.

Just hope they don't fancy Macs:)

Or...

... a tad more natural not to fly at all.

But I guess if you really have to go to Australia (thanks Guardian), this is a better way to do it.

There's a hint in the word 'stay', guys

From The Guardian (travel, not environment - different dept.): The green rooms - New green places to stay are popping up all over the world. Here are the latest from five bloggers with their ears to the ground

There's getting there, too, guys, so I'm guessing Cornwall should come top.