I hope he won't mind. From a poster called Bob on an eco-forum I frequent, when sharing a link:
Speech made by John Hutton, Unite Conference, BAFTA, London, 26 March 2008
'Shows how the government is selling new nuclear power - not as a necessary addition to our energy supply, but as a b***dy great gravy train for the engineering industry and selected parts of academia. If they are not subsidising the industry, where is all the money for new Chairs, National Skills Academy coming from? '
It's also inspired a new label/acronym/category: JOBS4BOYS
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Bye bye bio?
Gosh, it's a stirring pot. And the question is, does the totality of the biofuel industry deserve to get tarred by what's looking like a very broad brush?
The responses to such pieces can often be insightful as the story itself...
Newsnight - Unsustainable world? -
Newsnight - Biofuel -
Newsnight - Unsustainable world? -
I noted one biofuel advocate in understandable Mandy Rice Davis mode as saying 'We can't do nothing about climate change' which, some have stated (including Mr. Paxman) without qualification as being 'man-made'. I have some problem with this definition purely as being an easy source of distraction to climate optimists. I prefer instead 'Probably man-worsened negative CC', and accepting that the prudent course in case it's true is to accept some evils as lesser, and cut back more and waste less.
But we need to be confident that what gets done is being done correctly and for the right reasons. Which brings us to competency and trust. From government to the agenda and abilities of some so-called objective media, both seem in short supply.
This was a thought-provoking piece, but unfortunately I, as a member of the consuming, but caring public, remain none the wiser.
It appears that our government, at the behest of the EU, has foisted something on us 'in the name of green' that, on current levels of information and 'expert' contribution, has at the very least a poor enviROI, and hence is serving our kids' futures very poorly.
Just a short time ago I admit to lusting after a SAAB biodiesel as a mitigating 'solution' to my family's needs/desires to travel, and the impact this has on the overall carbon impact we impose. Now it looks more likely to get keyed by an activist as a Hummer.
Currently the only winners still look like being a ratings hungry media. I note the piece that followed the biofuel one. I am no fan of Mr. Brown and his cabal of all the talents in representing this country's lead...er...followship, but it's an unenviable task to try and square economic growth and environmental impacts. Especially with a global population of 6B and growing.
Indy - Biofuel: the burning question - a critical extra point to note when it comes to consumer influence: the lack of clear provenance to help in making a purchase decision.
Gaurdian - Blow to introduction of greener fuel as oil firms face production delay - When they say 'greener' fuel...
BBBC - NEW - A worthy eyebrow-crank at the 'reporting' of the BBC, with a good link to the perils of allowing our lives to be guided by lobbyists and those under their spell (.. on ex's in a nice company condo in Marbella).
The responses to such pieces can often be insightful as the story itself...
Newsnight - Unsustainable world? -
Newsnight - Biofuel -
Newsnight - Unsustainable world? -
I noted one biofuel advocate in understandable Mandy Rice Davis mode as saying 'We can't do nothing about climate change' which, some have stated (including Mr. Paxman) without qualification as being 'man-made'. I have some problem with this definition purely as being an easy source of distraction to climate optimists. I prefer instead 'Probably man-worsened negative CC', and accepting that the prudent course in case it's true is to accept some evils as lesser, and cut back more and waste less.
But we need to be confident that what gets done is being done correctly and for the right reasons. Which brings us to competency and trust. From government to the agenda and abilities of some so-called objective media, both seem in short supply.
This was a thought-provoking piece, but unfortunately I, as a member of the consuming, but caring public, remain none the wiser.
It appears that our government, at the behest of the EU, has foisted something on us 'in the name of green' that, on current levels of information and 'expert' contribution, has at the very least a poor enviROI, and hence is serving our kids' futures very poorly.
Just a short time ago I admit to lusting after a SAAB biodiesel as a mitigating 'solution' to my family's needs/desires to travel, and the impact this has on the overall carbon impact we impose. Now it looks more likely to get keyed by an activist as a Hummer.
Currently the only winners still look like being a ratings hungry media. I note the piece that followed the biofuel one. I am no fan of Mr. Brown and his cabal of all the talents in representing this country's lead...er...followship, but it's an unenviable task to try and square economic growth and environmental impacts. Especially with a global population of 6B and growing.
Indy - Biofuel: the burning question - a critical extra point to note when it comes to consumer influence: the lack of clear provenance to help in making a purchase decision.
Gaurdian - Blow to introduction of greener fuel as oil firms face production delay - When they say 'greener' fuel...
BBBC - NEW - A worthy eyebrow-crank at the 'reporting' of the BBC, with a good link to the perils of allowing our lives to be guided by lobbyists and those under their spell (.. on ex's in a nice company condo in Marbella).
You say tomato
What's in a name?
I've always wondered what the distiction between 'Pollution' and 'Emissions' was.
The former has obvious connotations of nasty stuff that shouldn't be there, but thne so does the latter in one form, whilst in another is just the consequecne of 'stuff' taking place.
But in the great AGW/PMWNCC scehme of things you rarely hear of pollution, as the big issue is CO2... emissions. So it was interesting to see this headline mixing the two in a form if have rarley seen before:
China 'now top carbon polluter'
It also riases a few legintimate qustions about how such massive influnces on the possible negative impacts to the planet's ecosphere get encouraged to join in the mitigation drives.
I've always wondered what the distiction between 'Pollution' and 'Emissions' was.
The former has obvious connotations of nasty stuff that shouldn't be there, but thne so does the latter in one form, whilst in another is just the consequecne of 'stuff' taking place.
But in the great AGW/PMWNCC scehme of things you rarely hear of pollution, as the big issue is CO2... emissions. So it was interesting to see this headline mixing the two in a form if have rarley seen before:
China 'now top carbon polluter'
It also riases a few legintimate qustions about how such massive influnces on the possible negative impacts to the planet's ecosphere get encouraged to join in the mitigation drives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)