Sunday, January 06, 2008

Lead by donkeys, informed by sheep

I just watched the Andrew Marr show, with his guest the PM.

About as sorry an example of the state of governance and the media as I could imagine. A load of waffle that told me nothing. But what did surprise was another clear (after the Newsnight/Milliband exchange) example where two sets of major persons claimed totally different things... and I remain clueless as to the truth.

Here's something that this viewer DOES want to know and the country maybe want to understand (I don't pretend to speak for it, as I wish many others equally unable to know would not).

Please advise when all the 'facts' that Andrew and the Prime Minister have shared today with the viewing public have been clarified. They cannot both be right, so one or other must be very, very wrong and/or misinformed.

And, if so, how and why.

Otherwise there ceases to be any point to such interviews.


Mine did not for some reason find favour. Here are a few which did.

To err is human, to fudge... define, naturally

I found this... disconcerting: 'Natural' will remain undefined, says FDA

One might indeed wonder why such 'a lack of a uniform approach to the term has resulted in inconsistent product claims, consumer confusion, and even lawsuits against food companies accused of misleading consumers'.

Or, if of a cynical bent, maybe not.

Guardian - Board stiffs - Meanwhile, this side of the pond.

Tilting windmills

Home wind turbines dealt a blow

I take no pleasure in this. But it does at least maybe encourage greater commitment to assessing enviROIs before endorsing any 'Green is good no matter what ' nonsense, especially from subsidising bodies and the media. I'll leave commerce out of it as most are, and have always been in it for one thing, and caveat emptor.

The problem comes with perceptions. I'd say the notion that at least they remind folk of the need to save is a stretch, especially as less charitable, climate positive media and commenters will pounce on this and use it to further undermine sincere attempts by labelling those who do care and get taken in as rather naive and misguided. Which, frankly, many seem to have been.

Why was this research not available much sooner, and better known? And has there been no objective official guide for the start?

On the other hand, Jeremy Clarkson might not like it

The £1,290 car delights Indians but horrifies the green lobby

Beyond the poor taste humour of the headline, there is a rather serious back story to this.

Frankly it was/is inevitable. Just economic growth and market forces at work. Can't be denied.

And while I'm sure the green lobby can be relied upon to be horrified, I'm a might more interested in how the global political leadership sees such things developing.

Top of the world?

My views on what makes one, and hence validates one being called a hero are well documented. Along with the media that perpetuate the trend: 50 people who could save the planet

It's a list. And like any list as good as the people who draw it up, their subjective views and their agendas.

To critique is to lay one open to all manner of criticism in return. Anything that encourages those who try to do better by the planet and reward them with praise has to be worthwhile.

But having looked through I can only say how very few I would call either heroes or indeed those who 'could save the planet'.

The sheer preponderance of those who already greet each other in the green VIP room year on year is breathtaking. But in there are a few who are for sure inspirational (my preferred term) and may even be influential in driving a genuine enviROI+ forward by DOING (my preferred result). And I'm glad at least to have been introduced to a few more in this regard who I was not aware of.

As to the rest? Well, the 'debate' 'raging' in the blog between all 12 who have so far posted in one of the country's more significant daily papers (albeit enjoying a tenth the circulation of some others) is telling. If a little sad.