Well, they have asked...

The questions at least go up. Let's see what gets asked... and answered:

David Miliband on Newsnight

Qu 1: Will it ever be possible to see the choices (especially many, much vaunted 'alternative' options) broken out as peer-reviewed, agenda-free, non-lobbyist-influenced, 'clearly identified subsidy-support requiring' and based in fact? Also in spin-free, clear, objective, accurate, pro and con terms so that 'we', the voting, tax-paying public, can assess, decide upon and/or support, confident that we are not being managed by government, compliant media and interest groups to achieve box-ticking targets that have little to do with our kids' futures by being little more than just 'looking' like 'carbon' is being reduced?

Qu 2. If so, please do. A few starters for 10 (off the top of my head - sorry, no legions of research wonks at my disposal, as have most govt. ministers and programme makers)...

Wind farms.
Nuclear.
Latest Road Tax logic.
Coal fired power stations with no scrubbing systems planned.
Vast quangos with even greater comms budgets that DO what, exactly?
Focusing on trivia such as plastic bags when there is a LOT more, more critically, going on.
Cutting support in key areas allowing an individual option to help, such as solar, etc

Plus a few others I am sure others have/will provide...

Addendum:

BBC - Climate modelling uncertainty

New questions added to the above:

I have just watched the BBC Environmental 'analyst' Roger 'is that ok with you, it's now been HarraBINNED' objective piece from last night, which I am sure reflects the 'emerging truth' view of the government and its compliant media establishment.

I also note that, as stated by many world leaders, and summed up by Ban Ki Moon, that AGW 'is the single greatest threat to humanity'. Hard to get on board with this by most current piecemeal, contradictory, politically opportunistic and frankly hypocritical behaviours. Hence, if this IS the case...

Qu: Why are government still just tinkering around the edges when the mood suits?

Qu: Why are most efforts by this country more designed to distract from other issues or to raise taxes that are hard to relate to tangible environmental benefits?

Qu: If, as claimed in the piece, it will take a 1,000 more computer systems to confirm this issue once and for all, one way or the other, why don't you just DO it? This is the future of the planet, apparently.

If there was a leadership contest announced I bet you'd be hard pressed to get an imminent meteorite strike on even the Science & Tech blog of most media for the next few months.

Qu: Why, as it is as sure as night follows day that this will become a back-burner (warming) issue again with the next sound-bite or ratings story, should anyone believe the next Chicken Little initiative you and your colleagues trot out now, or when next resurrected in the future?

Qu: If it is as serious as you claim it to be, why do you not make it as serious on every and any agenda you can think of, starting now, where practical to the exclusion of all else?

If war broke out... again... I'm sure the wheels of government and media would still turn. We'd just all be a bit more... focused. Not a bad thing?

Qu: Why do you think the government, and media organs such as the BBC, have so far proven so totally unsuccessful in persuading the majority of the electorate on almost any aspect of this issue to date, despite billions being spent (quangos, comms budgets, PR... some subsidy-driven efforts) with almost nothing tangible to show for it all?

Actually, the answers to the preceding questions might explain that. But then, it seems in many quarters these days that having polices that work, make sense AND can be sold successfully to those who vote is not what democracy should be about.

Qu: Do you think that anything said, discussed, promised and (though probably subsequently reneged upon) shared during a minor late-night news show watched by a small minority of the population, complemented by a few hundred others on this website, is going to make a blind bit of difference to what you, the government, the UK , the EU or the rest of the world actually DOES any time soon, vs. waffling on and on whilst bleeding most of us dry financially as you do so?

If this is not front page news tomorrow, throughout the UK at least, I will have my answer.

Yet I will plod on, whilst raising and supporting my family, trying to use and waste as little as I can, but trusting and feeling inclined to do what I am told 'is good for me' even less.

That... is the legacy of those who have brought us to this point.

Not great for a national lead...er... followership, really. And while the bunker may buy you more time than most, it is not really a solution.

Addendum 2 - Talk about Newsnight

Kismet. What I wrote above was not posted. Not sure why. Maybe there was a glitch (Like that can't happen! If so there was no indication on the site, but I did notice the word 'error' in the URL string. Not really expecting Auntie to acknowledge or address this anytime soon - though it's now 'down' at time of writing), maybe I wrote to much... or maybe you cannot post twice.

Anyway, it has given me an opportunity to digest and reply to the piece in a more considered way, and with a better chance of being seen, and making my point. Look how many replies refer to 'the single greatest issue to humanity', and how many, er, don't.

100+ questions posed. A few asked live. It will be interesting to see what we get, as promised, subsequently today.

Before even watching the Miliband piece, I wrote on my blog that if this is not front page news today, throughout the UK at least, I will have answers to some key questions.

As stated by many world leaders, and summed up by Ban Ki Moon, AGW 'is the single greatest threat to humanity'. Hard to get on board with this by most current piecemeal, contradictory, politically opportunistic and frankly hypocritical behaviours.

Yet government is still just tinkering around the edges when the mood suits, with most efforts by this country more designed to distract from other issues, or to raise taxes that are hard to relate to tangible environmental benefits.

If, as claimed in Mr Harrabin's accompanying piece, it will take a 1,000 more computer systems to confirm this issue once and for all, one way or the other, why not just DO it? This is the future of the planet, apparently.

And if there was a leadership contest announced I bet (and almost won - how soon did AGW get dropped in favour of probing 'juicier' news options) you'd be hard pressed to get an imminent meteorite strike on even the Science & Tech blog of most media for the next few months.

If this is as serious as claimed to be, why not make it as serious on every and any agenda you (government and media) can think of, starting now, where practical to the exclusion of all else?

Government, and media organs such as the BBC, have so far proven totally unsuccessful in persuading the majority of the electorate on almost any aspect of this issue to date, despite billions being spent (quangos, comms budgets, PR... some subsidy-driven efforts) with almost nothing tangible to show for it all. But then, it seems in many quarters these days that having polices that work, make sense AND can be sold successfully to those who vote is not what democracy should be about.

I wondered if anything said, discussed, promised and (though probably subsequently reneged upon) shared during a minor late-night news show watched by a small minority of the population, complemented by a few hundred others on this website, is going to make a blind bit of difference to what the government, the UK , the EU or the rest of the world actually DOES any time soon, vs. waffling on and on whilst bleeding most of us dry financially as you do so?

Front page news? It has barely raised a serious % of commentary the very next day even here!

That... is the sad legacy of those who would claim to lead, and inform, and have brought us to this point.

And I have my answer.

The speech - “GREEN PEACE: ENERGY, EUROPE AND THE GLOBAL ORDER”
- is it just me, or is anything with the words 'global order' ('new world' is just as snappy) a tad sinister?

Indy - NEW - Ministers cannot win case for green taxes if they won't apply them to green causes - The thick plotten, methinks

Guardian - NEW - A fair trade - A quaint 'open letter'

Culture of calamity

Bad news sells. Sad, but true.

But it's really getting too much in the media's desperation to fill 24/7 content hungry spaces, and boost ratings. And context seems to go out of the window. Along with any attempt at seeking a satisfactory resolution. The event is all, and the worse, the better. Now... moving on....

So I look at two back-to-back pieces on BBC News.

First up, we have the 'fact' that few parents allow their kids to walk to school. O.....k. So, er, what? Nope, that was it. A few vox pops with a couple of the legions of 'BBC average families' to say they wouldn't do it, and that's about it. What... was... is the point? If they wanted to depress us, they sure succeeded.

Next, waste. WRAP has cranked out another survey, and 'we' waste scag loads. But other than a few minor (if sensible) suggestions such as not over-buying, and a few daft ones (much as I like and respect Janey Lee Grace, she is now a media elite for whom having her fresh produce delivered is not perhaps a real financial hardship... and frankly the manner of its delivery does not seem to suggest much difference in our propensity to reject that which we over-buy), it was simply a case of 'isn't it all just awful'.

Actually, I would be interested in how these food waste figures play out across all sorts of comparisons. The BBC of course famously weighed in on the packaging debate, and without much of that which they took to task, food waste would be a lot worse. They really love it all ways.

There's even the totality of the figures. The numbers seem horrendous, but are they really that bad? Some waste is inevitable, and any reduction and hence savings in money and emissions is to be striven after. But this unremitting negative 'you're all sooooo bad and the country is sooo awful' is just getting a pain.

BBC - Food waste on 'staggering' scale - 3.6m tonnes
Guardian - Britons wasting £10bn worth of food a year, research says - guess we all got the same PR, then.
Indy - What a waste: Britain throws away £10bn of food every year - or, to put it another way...

This last post (Martin O'Brien) is more than interesting. As was the one tucked away earlier noting that the media-frenzy Planet Ban-it of the month is not, if temporarily, packaging. Good job too, as if used correctly, it actually goes a long way to preventing food waste.

But for all the shock and awe expressed, especially by the ladies who launch campaigns at the drop of a budget, as a consumer I remain a little uncertain what all this froth and both makes suggest one DOES.

I rather suspect all here (myself included) throw out zippy. So what do we have for those less incentivised so far to save (money, waste...etc)?:

'Wrap suggested households seeking to balance their finances could save money by following basic tips to prevent food waste, such as planning shopping trips better and keeping a closer check on use-by dates. It also pointed out that many people do not know the difference between a "best before date", which has no implications for food safety, and use-by data, which must be followed.'

Good advice. Not exactly startling in its own right, and nor have I seen it expressed very loud, clear or often. In fact I have seen one, I am sure award-winning, 'Love Food: Hate Waste' ad (at how much media spend???) in a Sunday Supp. It had a crying tomato. Showed it to my wife, kids and Mum. Not a clue what it was on about. You know, I think the money on that, and those who spun it up, could have been better spent elsewhere.

Like most 'awareness' in the name of green that is being served up so far. We need actions and incentives, not platitudes and winger-waving.

Dizzy Thinks - food-for-thought - a mostly fair, and funny complement