Monday, January 07, 2008

Pros and Cons

Climate change. Can't live with it. Can't turn on the box without it.

I have long given up with the arguments about the various shades of CC, but remain very interested in how it gets played out, especially when it gets to the man in the Clapham omnibus.

Ca,me across a link to this from a loooong time ago.

The Battle for Influence

Might be worth a listen to. Never know.

Bear e-cessities?

Artic Tale

Last thing I read was a pretty credibel notion tha polar bears were not doing too bad, climatically, but the main threat was oil exploartion and/or man's incursion into their territories. Please do not let this be another open goal for the optimists.

I know they are cute and cuddly (well, except the tearing limb from limb thing), but I question if these guys are really the best icon for action.

Just asking as not sure, but might a pretty big threat to Seela surviving be Nanu's mum?

I know what the intention behind this is, but just hope that the actuality doesn't play second fiddle to promoting the message.

Last time I saw a polar bear used was a Curry's ad for an LCD TV.

Brown lighting

It's what I think you get when you mix red and green. it's the colour of fudge. Nuclear plan puts Brown's green image in spotlight

And again I find myself with some small sympathy for the dilemma he faces. Well, as far as being between a rock and a hard place, but that's why he is in the job he coveted. Frankly I'd have more respect if he just turned round and said 'Look, you can't have it all, I'm going this way' rather than trying to be all things to all people but ending up a nothing to no one.

And yes, I heard him 'Speaking on the BBC's The Andrew Marr Show, where he said: "This is a year of very big choices for the British society and for Britain as a whole. It's about equipping ourselves for the future; a year of big long-term decisions. I will be judged by whether I get these right."' And nowt there says anything of substance.

I leave the conclusion to one of his own MPs: "The tragedy of Gordon Brown is the only big decisions he appears capable of taking are the wrong ones."

'No nuclear power station has ever been built without substantial subsidies'

What would I give for a simp.. well at least clear chart outlining the ROI and enviROI of the various energy options we are being presented with.

Be it ring-fencing us with windmills, sticking a nuke in the back-garden or firing up a coal-fired without a CO2 scrubber I'd just like to see where the money is coming from, who it is going to, for what and for how long to deliver what to my socket.

And then I'd like to see what the consequences to my kids' futures are of these from the minute a spade goes into the ground (or, more like, more gets blown on pre-consultancy than the project) to the moment they are decommissioned, including all maintenance consequences.

It surely should not be that hard?

Guardian - Which would you rather subsidise?
- in the world of some media I rather have a sense of wishing something to be, rather than reporting on what is.

And another - Don't make us nuke - some media are now rather devalued by being a tad exclusive in their discussions, I fear. I'd say they were preaching to a converted flock, but having read some thread replies maybe not.

What is obvious is that the Guardian quoting BBC links and vice versa is not making for a great debate, or very credible these days as any kind of objective justification.

To serve and protect?

One comment that has cause to make me pause is that by being all online and all, I am promoting lots of emissions on the energy consequences of all the IT involved.

Being a website and a blog it would be tricky not to run most of what I have, but here's a possible mitigation to share:


The source that sent this to me is usually very good, but there is something about the use of English in the intro that has me cautious, above and beyond any invitation to cut and paste stuff in and around computers.

So I have done nothing yet, and written to Google direct to check.

I'd suggest that you wait with me until I get a reply and update this post.

I want this to be true, and it looks good, but sadly this is a nasty old world and people will use green for just about any odd notion of self-advancement there is.

A river runs through it

I like to find positives, and I am a fan of hydro, so this is a good share: Hydro tunnel makes breakthrough

Also nice to see a 'will' when it comes to power claims. Sadly some other alt. eng. projects seem to have a few coulds 'n caveats attached

Speaking of rubbish

I noticed this headline: Soldiers bulldoze Naples rubbish

And hence the story. So far, so P-EU.

What intrigued me more, in terms of the nature of news gathering, was this at the end:

Are you in Naples? Have you been affected by the rubbish collection crisis? Use the form below to send us your stories, some of which may be published.

You can send pictures and video to: or to send via mobile please dial +44 (0)7725 100 100.

I'm all for citizen journalism, but just wondered what checks and balances existed on this, or indeed any other comments or footage that comes in and ends up on a major news site. Do they verify?

Seems like an invitation to create something if one is so minded to sway a story.

Over my head

Great. To the pointless, time-consuming (ok, that's the point) barrages on climate change, as a consumer in no man's land I can add government and corporates on energy: NPower blames Government targets for price hike

I'm not so sure I am that concerned on 'blame', but surely we can easily be told just where the actual numbers are derived from and come to our own conclusions?