Though, I suspect some may not like my use of it.
Boris Johnson to slash London environmental team in half
'...a major shake-up that calls into question the commitment to the environment of the mayor'
By whom? Until we see the enviROI of what gets DONE with the money that makes a difference, rather than talked about endlessly between vast overlapping quango empires with vast comms budgets, I will hold any critique or allusions to 'others' making them until they do.
I am a champion for green initiatives leading the charge, but they need to be tangibles that make my kids' futures better, not box-ticking, target-meeting, non-job-creating, multi-million £ 'awareness'-raising, bonus-feeding, lobbyist-pleasing, lipsmacking, ace-tasting... er.. you get my drift:)
But if any lost are making a real contribution, then questions need to be asked, and answered.
ps: I'm guessing that leaked docos are OK, at least for today? (A Guardian journo was on the Jeremy Vine show yesterday saying it wasn't on, and was allowed to allude to the 'whisleblower' being a Tory mole. Which does kinda smack of those plethora of standards that crank my eyebrow.)
Addendum 1:
What's the saying? 'Careful what you wish for... predict... create?
Interesting, but sad, is how this has progressed.
First thing to note is that, other than a few possible observers, beyond the author (and who knows who they post as?) it is a singles' game.
No matter.
I think, on balance, I was at fault. I was rather sweeping in my critique. But then in mitigation I was irritated by a political/media agenda which, in my view, was already producing some slopping reporting.
But in being flip, I may well have conjured up a vision of a red rag to a public-sectorphilic person with a sore head.
That's where my mea culpa ends.
This person was/is on a very high horse and, despite my attempts, decided to stay upon it. Maybe even rear up more. I was in no mood for too much by way of conciliation.
However, as this was swerving into nasty places I have decided to leave, exit stage...right (wing?), followed, I hope not too far, by the bear.
I obviously think this person to be wrong, unfair and aggressive.
Mainly it's the journalist's fault. Dripping with agenda, they came out with a half story and I objected, maybe swinging too far the other way to show how some others may view matters. But I clearly stated that it was this lack of clarity that prevented objective conclusions so far.
Hence it could be a purging pol looking to save a quick buck on a weak voter sector (currently), or it could be some trimming of fat in crunchier times. Having a degree does not guarantee pay and indeed a job for life for a lot of us.
I am satisfied I did my best, fought the corner for enviROI and, coincidentally managed to work in my concerns of the medium and the messengers.
The Guardian can be a fine reporting organ. But it is read by a small minority, and one which seems too often to think 'others' are beneath them, and contempt.
That is a poor way to bring the majority of the UK population onside, especially as articulated by this representative. I think they have given environmental debate a worse name as a consequence.
Addendum 2 -
Hard to leave such things alone, but I think best to move the debate of the pages of the Guardian, noting that they seem to have about two more readers to me.
There has been a reply, which is more friendly at least, and even more balanced, but perhaps as dangerous. Where the previous poster was 'how dare you have another view', this was more 'Why can't we all be friends... and leave the original post as it was'.
Any reader of this blog will know I am an advocate of doing over talking, but sorry, these two options still leave a result that won't wash... at least with me: doing nothing.
Unlike the latest poster, when I look at my two lovely sons, I feel happy, happy happy, and then angry, and then all the more determined to fight for making their futures as good as they can be.
And that means being pragmatic. Divorcing budgets from actions is the naive mantra of the hopeless idealist. Even foot-stamping, cross ones.
I have never said do nothing. I DO things all the time. I simply advocate that what gets done, with all the money that can and will be allocated to do it, goes to tangibles that make a difference.
Take insulation. I have lost count of the number of bodies - with offices and staff and comms budgets and conference passes - that there are to get it into my dear old Mum's cottage. She doesn't need it, because I did it an age ago. But has she... or I... heard from any one of these overlapping numpties, at least in terms that make sense and create engagement. For every £20, subsidised roll, there is a horde of officers and forms and checks and assessments. All overlapping.
I have been wrong, I am often wrong and I will be wrong. And I am more than willing to be told I am, set things straight and work on the positives of correction and promotion.
But I will not be bullied to silence by those who have a nice little number, or seduced by those who think 'green is always good, no matter what the cost'. Especially when it is with my family's money, more often than not to fund them for what they want, rather than what is actually needed.
End of.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
I decide to reply to a BBC blooger...
On the one hand, I love useful info. On the other, I don't like being 'fed'.
There were a few elements of 'medium vs. messenger' here, and also some 'politically correct' BBC lines being taken.
Are we all doomed?
Other than death, taxes and licence fees, No. But I'm guessing you mean the humin race, and more specifically through 'probably man-worsened climate change'. In which case no, not for a while, and 'I am not sure anyone knows, yet, but it might be worth sussing out the skinny to prepare'.
Well, we came to America to do nothing less than save the world.
And here was me thinking it was another 'don't do as we do, don't do what we say don't do' jolly to get a programme out and crank up some ratings in the niche end of the schedule, and some hits on a blog. But it is great you had a good time, and guys like our Darryl liked the reach the BBC has so much she caught up with you again.
If a few things might assist in certain endeavours, I'd pop in 'realism' and 'pragmatism' for two.
I have a colleague who lives in fear of their blog because of the aggressive and rude comments people post.
That is neither welcome nor, to use one of our Dear Leader's most fatuous phrases, 'acceptable'. Aggression and rudeness are poor ways to move opinion, IMHO. Especially if the pieces that have provoked such reactions are factual, objective, and free from 'enhanced narratives' and 'interpreted events'. That's what effective, honest moderation is for.
However, as your colleague Susan and her 'superior' might appreciate, it is not unlikely there will be a robust expression of disagreement if liberties are taken. Folk were not keen that President Obama's speech was turned in the edit suite into an 'emerging truth'.
That said...
'...if readers or viewers disagreed their only way to respond was a letter to the editor that, almost always, would go unpublished, if not unread.'
You are aware of the BBC 'House Rules', I take it? They can be, and often are used to delete just about anything that some do not fancy. Still.
A fact that seems to be causing some rumblings in the blogosphere. You can't control what you don't own.
But I'll look forward to the report. So long as it is guided by 'hewing close to the line, and letting the chips fall where they may', and not dogma or agenda. And by heavens the science stays sensible and the enviROI top of mind.
If not, I'm sure a few will be on hand to give you the heads up.
There were a few elements of 'medium vs. messenger' here, and also some 'politically correct' BBC lines being taken.
Are we all doomed?
Other than death, taxes and licence fees, No. But I'm guessing you mean the humin race, and more specifically through 'probably man-worsened climate change'. In which case no, not for a while, and 'I am not sure anyone knows, yet, but it might be worth sussing out the skinny to prepare'.
Well, we came to America to do nothing less than save the world.
And here was me thinking it was another 'don't do as we do, don't do what we say don't do' jolly to get a programme out and crank up some ratings in the niche end of the schedule, and some hits on a blog. But it is great you had a good time, and guys like our Darryl liked the reach the BBC has so much she caught up with you again.
If a few things might assist in certain endeavours, I'd pop in 'realism' and 'pragmatism' for two.
I have a colleague who lives in fear of their blog because of the aggressive and rude comments people post.
That is neither welcome nor, to use one of our Dear Leader's most fatuous phrases, 'acceptable'. Aggression and rudeness are poor ways to move opinion, IMHO. Especially if the pieces that have provoked such reactions are factual, objective, and free from 'enhanced narratives' and 'interpreted events'. That's what effective, honest moderation is for.
However, as your colleague Susan and her 'superior' might appreciate, it is not unlikely there will be a robust expression of disagreement if liberties are taken. Folk were not keen that President Obama's speech was turned in the edit suite into an 'emerging truth'.
That said...
'...if readers or viewers disagreed their only way to respond was a letter to the editor that, almost always, would go unpublished, if not unread.'
You are aware of the BBC 'House Rules', I take it? They can be, and often are used to delete just about anything that some do not fancy. Still.
A fact that seems to be causing some rumblings in the blogosphere. You can't control what you don't own.
But I'll look forward to the report. So long as it is guided by 'hewing close to the line, and letting the chips fall where they may', and not dogma or agenda. And by heavens the science stays sensible and the enviROI top of mind.
If not, I'm sure a few will be on hand to give you the heads up.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
A man to like, on several counts...
Miliband's new green helper
I shall follow now follow another so described: 'impeccable "green" credentials. He is also outspoken and not afraid to criticise the Government. With interest.
I shall follow now follow another so described: 'impeccable "green" credentials. He is also outspoken and not afraid to criticise the Government. With interest.
EARTH HOUR - Confusion time?
At the behest of a few, and as it was/is a 'why not?', I was ready to switch off tonight.
Now, I need to look at enviROI's an messages and messengers again.
Not because of this: Earth Hour is stupid and pointless. Leave the blasted lights on
Or because of this in rebuttal (which it richly deserved. It's one thing to have a contrary view on things, but just being contrary for the sake of it serves no one): Never mind me, what about them
But mainly because of this (and comments in reply): Earth Hour: Turning out the lights plays into the hands of our critics
As a pragmatist, my greatest concern is this on the science: it is claimed 'this will not actually reduce any emissions. Power companies always keep spare capacity and will keep their turbines spinning through this unpredictable fall in demand in preparation for when people turn their lights back on again'.
However, the caution on the effect to the vast proportion of very lite greens to don't cares is well taken.
A dilemma indeed.
On the one had if any ask why my house is in darkness do I show it to be a tokenist but worthy piece of 'awareness', or set myself up for be more part of a problem then the solution?
As I seek to confirm the counter-engineering aruments by some posters, I am still erring on 'off'. Also I worry about an author who is linked to a site that last updated in Dec. of last year. Junkk's home page has new stuff (ideas and blogs) about 6 times a day. This is a fast moving sector!
FWIW, this PC will now be off then, having been convinced that it is better to switch in on and off daily than spin 24/7 (the energy in standby vs. energy to buy a new one as they break quicker if spun up and down all the time - but roll on solid state hard drives of 1 TB)
BBC - World cities begin big switch-off -
The Australian - Hour of no power increases emissions - No idea about the claims until they are challenged, but we now seem to be in a zone of looking like you're doing something being more important than actually doing it. My awareness is will honed, but what will be the actual effect on someone less concerned?
Telegraph - NEW - Earth Hour: Landmarks plunged into darkness in support of climate change action - I did my bit... I was in bed!
Now, I need to look at enviROI's an messages and messengers again.
Not because of this: Earth Hour is stupid and pointless. Leave the blasted lights on
Or because of this in rebuttal (which it richly deserved. It's one thing to have a contrary view on things, but just being contrary for the sake of it serves no one): Never mind me, what about them
But mainly because of this (and comments in reply): Earth Hour: Turning out the lights plays into the hands of our critics
As a pragmatist, my greatest concern is this on the science: it is claimed 'this will not actually reduce any emissions. Power companies always keep spare capacity and will keep their turbines spinning through this unpredictable fall in demand in preparation for when people turn their lights back on again'.
However, the caution on the effect to the vast proportion of very lite greens to don't cares is well taken.
A dilemma indeed.
On the one had if any ask why my house is in darkness do I show it to be a tokenist but worthy piece of 'awareness', or set myself up for be more part of a problem then the solution?
As I seek to confirm the counter-engineering aruments by some posters, I am still erring on 'off'. Also I worry about an author who is linked to a site that last updated in Dec. of last year. Junkk's home page has new stuff (ideas and blogs) about 6 times a day. This is a fast moving sector!
FWIW, this PC will now be off then, having been convinced that it is better to switch in on and off daily than spin 24/7 (the energy in standby vs. energy to buy a new one as they break quicker if spun up and down all the time - but roll on solid state hard drives of 1 TB)
BBC - World cities begin big switch-off -
The Australian - Hour of no power increases emissions - No idea about the claims until they are challenged, but we now seem to be in a zone of looking like you're doing something being more important than actually doing it. My awareness is will honed, but what will be the actual effect on someone less concerned?
Telegraph - NEW - Earth Hour: Landmarks plunged into darkness in support of climate change action - I did my bit... I was in bed!
Some that is green can be black or white?
Black car ban hysteria misses the point
And here was me thinking it made sense!
Mind you, imagining how eco-guys like the Prez and his motorcade of Suburban's and the limos of most green advocates with better business models than some would fare was proving fun.
And here was me thinking it made sense!
Mind you, imagining how eco-guys like the Prez and his motorcade of Suburban's and the limos of most green advocates with better business models than some would fare was proving fun.
Friday, March 27, 2009
RE:view - SATS tests
I succumbed.Motivated by a recent 1/2 hour drivearound seeking a venue, and promoted by a deal, I have bought a Sat Nav. So far, so blinking amazing.
I'd have to say the enviro aspects were not uppermost in my mind, but already I can safely say that it was the best £150 I have spent in a while, even if it is on a 'toy'.
I have already completed a few trips, and while the fuel cost savings may never cover the purchase investment, I am happy that enviROI is well and truly satisfied. There's also the intangibles (I hope) of safety, etc.
The Good
My model is a Tom Tom, and very easy to use and effective I have found it. Nice clear screen, simple, comprehensible audio warnings and instructions. Simple to program. WYSIWYG. Can't fault it yet. A few odd routes close to home when I know a quicker way, but it seemed to 'learn' when I ignored those.
The Better?
Of course, I now am more 'aware', and just clicked on a banner at for a competitor, and arrived at this. Too late for me! Though I am a little unclear as to what it does that others cannot. But maybe the eco. vs. fastest route is genuine. That said, 56mph on a motorway is probably the most fuel efficient way to go rather than 70mph, or stop start and winding the B-roads. Possibly a bit of a gimmick. Without buying one it's hard to say. But I may revisit this RE:view as I would a category as news is published from elsewhere.
The Ugly
And now the downside. This from last night's Ch 4 Snowmail sums it up: And seen any 40-tonne artics stuck up single-track country lanes recently? Well, the joys of Sat Nav Stupidity are becoming so well known now that there's a kind of unofficial hit parade emerging as the nation's tried and tested favorites grind to a frustrated halt in great clouds of diesel with ever increasing regularity. And the extraordinary thing is that the system never seems to learn and amend. The Lib Dems are demanding urgent government action. Don't hold your breath.
Enter 'Sat Nav HGV Hot Spots' here
Personally, I still keep a road map and the relevant pages of Google Maps to hand... just in case.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
CATEGORY - RE:tie support info
Sorry, just using a bit of back-up space to start filing useful info to help the RE:tie efforts.
However, as most pertains to consumer attitudes to environment in their purchasing, especially with packaging, some may find it interesting too.
Daily Express -
Times - Hard-up shoppers abandon organic and fair trade goods
COMPANIES -
Times - New lease of life for the Co-op
However, as most pertains to consumer attitudes to environment in their purchasing, especially with packaging, some may find it interesting too.
Daily Express -
Times - Hard-up shoppers abandon organic and fair trade goods
COMPANIES -
Times - New lease of life for the Co-op
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Meanwhile, on the perpetual motion front...
Water-fuel car unveiled in Japan
I can see that the car can be powered by energy from burning hydrogen generated by splitting water. Nifty.
What is not so clear from any text or video is what powers the 'energy generator' that produces the hydrogen to run the car.
It suspect that still may require some 'external input'.
Not that the reporter seemed concerned. Soon to be all round the MSM, equally uncritically, no doubt.
I can see that the car can be powered by energy from burning hydrogen generated by splitting water. Nifty.
What is not so clear from any text or video is what powers the 'energy generator' that produces the hydrogen to run the car.
It suspect that still may require some 'external input'.
Not that the reporter seemed concerned. Soon to be all round the MSM, equally uncritically, no doubt.
CATEGORY - GM
New topic.
This first post covers many other, related, issues...
Articles
BBC - Is the green movement part of the problem?
This first post covers many other, related, issues...
Articles
BBC - Is the green movement part of the problem?
THE TWO E"s - On your wagon
Turning on to Nano-man
'Regularly these days we hear appeals from politicians... It's urgent, they say, and - this is the key message - it can be done, if everyone and every country does his/her/its bit.'
A very key comment. And one I find hard to rationalise with what issues forth from many politicians, and the media that carry their press releases.
The only appeals I have heard of late are to support the car industry, and often ones that would be hard-pressed to be called 'green'. In crowded urban centres as described above, I agree mass transit initiatives would seem a much 'better' commitment.
But here the latest wheeze I heard of was paying the likes of me £2k to ditch my old car and buy a new Jag (who makes those?). Or maybe an LDV van? Sadly (financially, if not environmentally, from manufacturing impact to running) , I opted for a second hand LPG.
I'd just love to square the whole reduced eco-impact vs. growing economy thing, but just can't. I don't think it can be, at least in the ways being currently attempted, and with such blatant fudging if not dishonesty from the establishment.
Guardian - India launches 'world's cheapest car' - Enjoy the other threads and comments. George Monbiot's is 'lively'. I liked one of his supporters' claims against a few eyebrow-crankers that he has a car 'because he needs one'. Ahhhh... that's where I have been going wrong with my finger-wa... oh... I don't do that.
'Regularly these days we hear appeals from politicians... It's urgent, they say, and - this is the key message - it can be done, if everyone and every country does his/her/its bit.'
A very key comment. And one I find hard to rationalise with what issues forth from many politicians, and the media that carry their press releases.
The only appeals I have heard of late are to support the car industry, and often ones that would be hard-pressed to be called 'green'. In crowded urban centres as described above, I agree mass transit initiatives would seem a much 'better' commitment.
But here the latest wheeze I heard of was paying the likes of me £2k to ditch my old car and buy a new Jag (who makes those?). Or maybe an LDV van? Sadly (financially, if not environmentally, from manufacturing impact to running) , I opted for a second hand LPG.
I'd just love to square the whole reduced eco-impact vs. growing economy thing, but just can't. I don't think it can be, at least in the ways being currently attempted, and with such blatant fudging if not dishonesty from the establishment.
Guardian - India launches 'world's cheapest car' - Enjoy the other threads and comments. George Monbiot's is 'lively'. I liked one of his supporters' claims against a few eyebrow-crankers that he has a car 'because he needs one'. Ahhhh... that's where I have been going wrong with my finger-wa... oh... I don't do that.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
PROF'S POSER - Dial 'S' for 'Sun'
Nothing like tapping into the best brains out there.Sp sorry if this is another question without an answer, as yet.
This weekend I bought a solar security lamp combo.
Where it was needed rather determined where it went and, despite a 5m cable, my choices were limited.
However, I did manage, a great risk to life and limb, to get it pretty high up, to make the most of the daytime sunlight. And, despite the picture, the panel is pretty much clear exposure all day.
However, I faced it due South. And near vertical. Now I have noticed, on a nice day like today, it is missing out on any solar impact until mid-morning, though if the sun stays out it will keep it pretty much until dusk.
My question is whether this is the most sensible orientation? Two real issues. When is the sun mostly 'out', and when is it at its most solarific?
I know that data will exist, and can determine the optimum year-round setting, as I don't want to go up there again. Scaaaaareee!
In passing, I will advise that I am working on a self powered device to help panels auto-track the heat of the sun, which I'll share when complete.
RE:tie - Uses
A few business folk have dismissed the RE:tie as they can't think why anyone would use them.
How do I love thee, RE:tie, let me (and I rather suspect, nay hope, others' imaginations may add to the list) count the ways ....
Bag tie - (if you are being charged per bag, you'll want to fill it to the top. So you'll need a tie)
Bean canes -
Cable Tidy - no pix yet
Connector -
Sign-posting -
Supermarket baskets -
Wheel hubs -
ADDENDUM -
By happy coincidence, I already have come across the next batch, from nifty reuse site repurposeful (featured in links..RHS)
Bogey persons
Opposing wind farms should be socially taboo, says Ed Miliband
This should, technically, be under the ALT. ENERGY category, but I think I'll give it its own splash.
What the heck does that headline, and by association the words of a government minister, mean?
'Should be socially taboo'? Is he simple? Or just playing to the crowd at the premiere of the Age of Stupid which, a few blogs earlier I have stated I wish to watch, but am more than unimpressed that will not allow any dissenting commentary to enter their realms.
Opposing wind farms should be subject to reasoned debate, facts, objectivity and (what is left of it) democratic process. Plus...enviROI. Just because there's a big whirl thing that meets an EU target and a lobbyist's entreaties doesn't make it right.
Next thing you'll find is Ministers will go on air claiming that the court of public opinion should take precedence over the law....oh.
I think these things can and should be embraced, wherever and whenever practically and cost/eco-effectively possible. But then I don't live near any. I like the look of them. But I accept there are negatives, from noise (close up) to property prices being reduced. Such things cannot be dismissed in such a manner by breaking out of one's pod like something from 'Invasion of the Body Snatcher's and hissing 'Nimby' at folk who have other views, any more than one should throw around pejoratives like 'denier' or 'Treehugger'. Especially if thy are there and you are just passing by.
I'm with Voltaire here, and I while I may agree with much that Mr. M is trying to do, I think he has a darned doltish way of saying it.
This should, technically, be under the ALT. ENERGY category, but I think I'll give it its own splash.
What the heck does that headline, and by association the words of a government minister, mean?
'Should be socially taboo'? Is he simple? Or just playing to the crowd at the premiere of the Age of Stupid which, a few blogs earlier I have stated I wish to watch, but am more than unimpressed that will not allow any dissenting commentary to enter their realms.
Opposing wind farms should be subject to reasoned debate, facts, objectivity and (what is left of it) democratic process. Plus...enviROI. Just because there's a big whirl thing that meets an EU target and a lobbyist's entreaties doesn't make it right.
Next thing you'll find is Ministers will go on air claiming that the court of public opinion should take precedence over the law....oh.
I think these things can and should be embraced, wherever and whenever practically and cost/eco-effectively possible. But then I don't live near any. I like the look of them. But I accept there are negatives, from noise (close up) to property prices being reduced. Such things cannot be dismissed in such a manner by breaking out of one's pod like something from 'Invasion of the Body Snatcher's and hissing 'Nimby' at folk who have other views, any more than one should throw around pejoratives like 'denier' or 'Treehugger'. Especially if thy are there and you are just passing by.
I'm with Voltaire here, and I while I may agree with much that Mr. M is trying to do, I think he has a darned doltish way of saying it.
Worried about CO2 and Methane?
Well, apart from these two well known greenhouse gases, there are now a couple more to worry about too, as this from SciScoop reports.
Apparently, concentrations of nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) and sulfuryl fluoride (SO2F2) are rapidly increasing in our atmosphere and both are known to be powerful greenhouse gases.
Just how many more straws can we (mankind) load onto the camel's back?
Apparently, concentrations of nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) and sulfuryl fluoride (SO2F2) are rapidly increasing in our atmosphere and both are known to be powerful greenhouse gases.
Just how many more straws can we (mankind) load onto the camel's back?
Monday, March 23, 2009
POOH CORNER - Wee Directive?
NASA delays test of space station urine recycler
And here's me thinking it was in the Carling 'brewery'.
And here's me thinking it was in the Carling 'brewery'.
CAMPAIGN - Action Earth
I'm often not big on campaigns, but this one looks OK:
actionearth.org.uk
A bit of sponsorship in there, but that's fine. Plus some nice funding for nifty local activities.
actionearth.org.uk
A bit of sponsorship in there, but that's fine. Plus some nice funding for nifty local activities.
PR COVERAGE - And it's Rubbish... thankfully
They do say it's the awards from your peers that mean the most.
rubbish-diet-awards-2009
I'll go along with that:)
rubbish-diet-awards-2009
I'll go along with that:)
Stupid is as Stupid does
I am going to see the Age of Stupid.
I am going to do so because I have heard about it, it sounds interesting, it may be worth a gander and I'll learn something.
The producers must be thrilled.
However, they might not be so pleased that I am going with an eyebrow now cranked, and not in a good way. And it's their fault.
The rage of stupid
This bit, especially, did not help: the site's managers are taking no chances. Their comment box carries a legend that somewhat undermines this apparently glowing feedback. It reads: "Any comments from climate deniers/sceptics will be deleted."..the site's managers are taking no chances. "
That smacks of a slight lack of confidence from the off, and also suggests that balance may not be uppermost. Which means the science I see may not be the science there is.
You know, I may wait for a few more reviews where all 'sides' are allowed to comment free of censorship/agenda/narrative enhancing, etc, and then decide whether I'll go.
Now, was/is that the intention?
I am going to do so because I have heard about it, it sounds interesting, it may be worth a gander and I'll learn something.
The producers must be thrilled.
However, they might not be so pleased that I am going with an eyebrow now cranked, and not in a good way. And it's their fault.
The rage of stupid
This bit, especially, did not help: the site's managers are taking no chances. Their comment box carries a legend that somewhat undermines this apparently glowing feedback. It reads: "Any comments from climate deniers/sceptics will be deleted."..the site's managers are taking no chances. "
That smacks of a slight lack of confidence from the off, and also suggests that balance may not be uppermost. Which means the science I see may not be the science there is.
You know, I may wait for a few more reviews where all 'sides' are allowed to comment free of censorship/agenda/narrative enhancing, etc, and then decide whether I'll go.
Now, was/is that the intention?
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Big issues. No #36G.
Can cosmetic surgery ever be green?
Nice to see the Londonistas getting to the 'meat' (sorry) of the big eco-issues.
I can see this really bothering my missus of an evening. Population control (major s**t-fight on the BBC this morning. And an interesting way of spinning it in The Observer), MMGW, etc... and getting perky in a way that will impress the gels at the next eco-gathering. Mind you, we do often get excited about plastics, so maybe it's 'in the zone'.
Sadly no option to respond.
My answer to the headline is.. 'Of course. A rusty blade. Limited access to medical care, a bit of gangrene and Bob's your uncle (or boobs the colour of pus-flecked corruption).
Probably just as well I didn't get the chance.
Next up... 'Is your fresh Tofu flown in AND offset?'
Addendum
No, I think this one is better... and for real. Sadly:
The Aga saga: George Monbiot v William McGrath
Nice to see the Londonistas getting to the 'meat' (sorry) of the big eco-issues.
I can see this really bothering my missus of an evening. Population control (major s**t-fight on the BBC this morning. And an interesting way of spinning it in The Observer), MMGW, etc... and getting perky in a way that will impress the gels at the next eco-gathering. Mind you, we do often get excited about plastics, so maybe it's 'in the zone'.
Sadly no option to respond.
My answer to the headline is.. 'Of course. A rusty blade. Limited access to medical care, a bit of gangrene and Bob's your uncle (or boobs the colour of pus-flecked corruption).
Probably just as well I didn't get the chance.
Next up... 'Is your fresh Tofu flown in AND offset?'
Addendum
No, I think this one is better... and for real. Sadly:
The Aga saga: George Monbiot v William McGrath
PROF'S POSER - Up in smoke?
This is firmly in the 'Two wrong's do not...' camp, but I would like to know*:
Do you think the BBC environment correspondent will tell us how much CO2 and sulfur compounds has been released by the Tongan volcano in the last two days, and what % this represents of the sum of similar gases released by annual human industrial activity?
This may bring up an 'inconvenient' fact or two.
It becomes pertinent as one discusses the relative man-worsened aspects of anthropomorphic climate change. I wonder if we will get any discussion, much less answers, from some usual suspects quitekeen on rushing to print and screen with other data when it suits?
Times - Underwater volcano sends huge columns of ash into Pacific sky
Indy - Volcano shatters Pacific calm around Tonga
ADDENDUM
*I asked; I may have an answer (if from another source, and an unvetted one for now. And I await, with dread, the publishing of equally valid-looking data that claims the exact opposite) in another blog...
48. At 8:58pm on 21 Mar 2009, manysummits
We have injected a trillion (1 x 10 EEX 12) metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere since 1751, half of that in the last twenty five years, and we are increasing that by some two to three percent per year. Background volcanic emmisions from all volcanoes, including the 60,000 kilometer mid-ocean ridge system, are on the order of 0.2 to at most 1 billion (1 x 10 EEX 9) tons per year, two orders of magnitude less than we, anthropogens all, are emitting per year.
CO2 is up 38 percent over preindustrial levels (280 to 387 ppmv), and has never been above 300 ppmv for at least 450,000 years (four glacial intergalcial cycles).
The search continues.
ADDENDUM 23/03/09 - Alaskan volcano Mount Redoubt erupts -
Do you think the BBC environment correspondent will tell us how much CO2 and sulfur compounds has been released by the Tongan volcano in the last two days, and what % this represents of the sum of similar gases released by annual human industrial activity?
This may bring up an 'inconvenient' fact or two.
It becomes pertinent as one discusses the relative man-worsened aspects of anthropomorphic climate change. I wonder if we will get any discussion, much less answers, from some usual suspects quitekeen on rushing to print and screen with other data when it suits?
Times - Underwater volcano sends huge columns of ash into Pacific sky
Indy - Volcano shatters Pacific calm around Tonga
ADDENDUM
*I asked; I may have an answer (if from another source, and an unvetted one for now. And I await, with dread, the publishing of equally valid-looking data that claims the exact opposite) in another blog...
48. At 8:58pm on 21 Mar 2009, manysummits
We have injected a trillion (1 x 10 EEX 12) metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere since 1751, half of that in the last twenty five years, and we are increasing that by some two to three percent per year. Background volcanic emmisions from all volcanoes, including the 60,000 kilometer mid-ocean ridge system, are on the order of 0.2 to at most 1 billion (1 x 10 EEX 9) tons per year, two orders of magnitude less than we, anthropogens all, are emitting per year.
CO2 is up 38 percent over preindustrial levels (280 to 387 ppmv), and has never been above 300 ppmv for at least 450,000 years (four glacial intergalcial cycles).
The search continues.
ADDENDUM 23/03/09 - Alaskan volcano Mount Redoubt erupts -
But... do we get a big answer?
The Big Question: Does an impending shortage of vital resources threaten catastrophe?
Well, I am all for balance, but we end up with six.... 3 each way:
Will we be living in a dystopian nightmare world within 20 years?
Yes...
* By 2030 we may lack about 50 per cent of the food and energy we need to sustain everyone on the planet
* Millions of people may have been displaced from their homes and nations by water shortages
* It is more than conceivable that critical shortages of resources will lead to global instability and war
No...
* Don't take scientists' scare tactics too seriously. By overstating their concerns, they receive more funding
* A raft of technological advances and efficiency savings will ensure that the worst aspects of climate change are ameliorated
* We will certainly not become extinct – nature always finds a way
I merely note, especially as this is a climate pessimistic, action proactive paper, that the qualifiers 'may' seem to crop up in one section more, and not the one I'd imagined.
Well, I am all for balance, but we end up with six.... 3 each way:
Will we be living in a dystopian nightmare world within 20 years?
Yes...
* By 2030 we may lack about 50 per cent of the food and energy we need to sustain everyone on the planet
* Millions of people may have been displaced from their homes and nations by water shortages
* It is more than conceivable that critical shortages of resources will lead to global instability and war
No...
* Don't take scientists' scare tactics too seriously. By overstating their concerns, they receive more funding
* A raft of technological advances and efficiency savings will ensure that the worst aspects of climate change are ameliorated
* We will certainly not become extinct – nature always finds a way
I merely note, especially as this is a climate pessimistic, action proactive paper, that the qualifiers 'may' seem to crop up in one section more, and not the one I'd imagined.
Friday, March 20, 2009
One man's meat...
Bag a polar bear for $35,000: the new threat to the species
Hard to figure the challenge of standing off an popping a high-powered round from a distance at an unarmed creature, but heigh-ho. Last time I heard the word respect used in the context above I think it was in Grand Theft Auto/San Andreas, and the protagonist had an UZI. The other guy ended up pretty much like the polar bear, mind.
And what are they THINKING???? Don't they realise that these creatures are being wiped out by man in other ways and are to only be used for promotional purposes on melting icebergs.
Seems some folk just haven't got the whole 'Save the...' gig joined up and sorted. Darned indigenous community types.
Hard to figure the challenge of standing off an popping a high-powered round from a distance at an unarmed creature, but heigh-ho. Last time I heard the word respect used in the context above I think it was in Grand Theft Auto/San Andreas, and the protagonist had an UZI. The other guy ended up pretty much like the polar bear, mind.
And what are they THINKING???? Don't they realise that these creatures are being wiped out by man in other ways and are to only be used for promotional purposes on melting icebergs.
Seems some folk just haven't got the whole 'Save the...' gig joined up and sorted. Darned indigenous community types.
XXX-rated
I mean my comment, not the um, ad, or product, in question:)
Why bottled Bling H2O is an eco low
Looking at the bright side, and back at the main image (a lot), there does at least seem to be more than a small hint at the benefits of packaging reuse here, at least if my memory of an accidental click on a a spam email about a young lady called Cindy's love for her pet Rabbit was any guide.
Why bottled Bling H2O is an eco low
Looking at the bright side, and back at the main image (a lot), there does at least seem to be more than a small hint at the benefits of packaging reuse here, at least if my memory of an accidental click on a a spam email about a young lady called Cindy's love for her pet Rabbit was any guide.
The media, me, and the planet
I have mixed feelings about the media. Complex ones.
Made all the more so because, in some ways, Junkk.com and this blog have become one, of sorts, and I their reporter/editor, with all the opportunities and responsibilities that represents.
As an 'amateur', and an online blogger rather than a 'real' MSM representative, I do feel there is a difference, which can be good and bad. Mostly good, IMHO.
One thing is that I feel more credible as one of the great unwashed that is the public/consumer classes (not that anyone, from BBC editor to Guardian commentator isn't one too, or at least should have some empathy with. But often don't), and hence crank more the the odd eyebrow at some of the pronouncements for our 4th estate, especially in matters green.
I am especially sensitive to those that are sloppy on science, more for ratings and/or worst of all, straight out of 'DDAIDDAIS' camp.
There are way to many who do little more than talk, often talk tosh, and then go on to become poor examples of 'MEDIUM vs. MESSENGER', often undoing much that they pontificate on by either treating it as a one-off story or frankly seeing themselves as above the very things they finger wave at others for... often only briefly.
But there are honourable exceptions. Rare ones. And when they crop up I am going to take note, stay with them, and share. They seem to understand the concept of doing and, perhaps more importantly, sharing and leading by example.
One such is John-Paul Flintoff of the Times. His column is now linked on the blog roll at right.
I also wonder if it is no coincidence that, where I get studiously ignored or even blanked by many 'green VIPs' (I often write to suggest things to such folk), these guys also seem a heck of a lot nicer and more polite. He didn't have to, but Mr. Flintoff sought me out and wrote a very nice few words about what I'm trying to do. Which, in my lowly media position, was a heck of a thing and a real boost.
Made all the more so because, in some ways, Junkk.com and this blog have become one, of sorts, and I their reporter/editor, with all the opportunities and responsibilities that represents.
As an 'amateur', and an online blogger rather than a 'real' MSM representative, I do feel there is a difference, which can be good and bad. Mostly good, IMHO.
One thing is that I feel more credible as one of the great unwashed that is the public/consumer classes (not that anyone, from BBC editor to Guardian commentator isn't one too, or at least should have some empathy with. But often don't), and hence crank more the the odd eyebrow at some of the pronouncements for our 4th estate, especially in matters green.
I am especially sensitive to those that are sloppy on science, more for ratings and/or worst of all, straight out of 'DDAIDDAIS' camp.
There are way to many who do little more than talk, often talk tosh, and then go on to become poor examples of 'MEDIUM vs. MESSENGER', often undoing much that they pontificate on by either treating it as a one-off story or frankly seeing themselves as above the very things they finger wave at others for... often only briefly.
But there are honourable exceptions. Rare ones. And when they crop up I am going to take note, stay with them, and share. They seem to understand the concept of doing and, perhaps more importantly, sharing and leading by example.
One such is John-Paul Flintoff of the Times. His column is now linked on the blog roll at right.
I also wonder if it is no coincidence that, where I get studiously ignored or even blanked by many 'green VIPs' (I often write to suggest things to such folk), these guys also seem a heck of a lot nicer and more polite. He didn't have to, but Mr. Flintoff sought me out and wrote a very nice few words about what I'm trying to do. Which, in my lowly media position, was a heck of a thing and a real boost.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
I love the smell of box-ticking in the afternoon!
Major UK retailers and brands agreed to introduce on-pack recycling labelling system
Once you read that, best make add at the front 'Some...'
I love the smell of box-ticking in the afternoon!
It will be interesting to see how national brands end up coordinating with local authority variations. Especially as this 'non compulsory' scheme is 'encouraged' hither and thither.
I, for one, look forward to yet more info crammed on my pack side, but do wonder if the missus and kids will be too inspired as they stand, binside, getting to grips with bits that are 'widely recycled', and doubt rather whether they will be scooting off on a case by case basis to 'check local recycling'. Actually our local bods do at least take plastics, at least in the swimming pool carpark skip, and we just heave it all in there, from PEP to HDPE to lord knows what.
Well, at least the bits we don't reuse on Junkk.com or pop in our RE:box weekly kerbside boxes- soon to be ditched in favour of a big green wheelie taking everything in a big black plastic bag two counties across to be turned into recyclate tonnages that most recyclers won't take due to quality compromises, but still 'count' for EU targets - will now be better directed.
I cannot wait for the multi-million campaign to create 'awareness' for all this, driving up rates and helping with the bonuses of all (well, most: the consumer is still out of this loop) involved.
Just hope the planet and our kids' futures will benefit as much as the box tickers.
Ain't green grand?
Once you read that, best make add at the front 'Some...'
I love the smell of box-ticking in the afternoon!
It will be interesting to see how national brands end up coordinating with local authority variations. Especially as this 'non compulsory' scheme is 'encouraged' hither and thither.
I, for one, look forward to yet more info crammed on my pack side, but do wonder if the missus and kids will be too inspired as they stand, binside, getting to grips with bits that are 'widely recycled', and doubt rather whether they will be scooting off on a case by case basis to 'check local recycling'. Actually our local bods do at least take plastics, at least in the swimming pool carpark skip, and we just heave it all in there, from PEP to HDPE to lord knows what.
Well, at least the bits we don't reuse on Junkk.com or pop in our RE:box weekly kerbside boxes- soon to be ditched in favour of a big green wheelie taking everything in a big black plastic bag two counties across to be turned into recyclate tonnages that most recyclers won't take due to quality compromises, but still 'count' for EU targets - will now be better directed.
I cannot wait for the multi-million campaign to create 'awareness' for all this, driving up rates and helping with the bonuses of all (well, most: the consumer is still out of this loop) involved.
Just hope the planet and our kids' futures will benefit as much as the box tickers.
Ain't green grand?
Whodathunkit?
No, minister: mandarins frustrate Miliband's green revolution
I liked this bit::
'One high-profile political colleague was surprised to find the Climate Change Secretary holding a meeting in a small side room with plastic chairs, rather than in the more suitable surroundings of a ministerial office.
"After holding court in the plush ministerial office of [former Environment secretary] Hilary Benn, it was a bit of a change to find Ed in a small room with plastic chairs, a table and a white board," said an official present at the meeting. "It looked like a classroom."'
Well, yes, I can see how not having nice offices would be seen as below the plush levels one expected of a person looking to balance the needs of economy and demands of environmental issues. 'Like a classroom'... indeed. The very idea. Good enough for our kids, though, I guess.
Telegraph - NEW - Where’s the investment needed to green the economy?
I liked this bit::
'One high-profile political colleague was surprised to find the Climate Change Secretary holding a meeting in a small side room with plastic chairs, rather than in the more suitable surroundings of a ministerial office.
"After holding court in the plush ministerial office of [former Environment secretary] Hilary Benn, it was a bit of a change to find Ed in a small room with plastic chairs, a table and a white board," said an official present at the meeting. "It looked like a classroom."'
Well, yes, I can see how not having nice offices would be seen as below the plush levels one expected of a person looking to balance the needs of economy and demands of environmental issues. 'Like a classroom'... indeed. The very idea. Good enough for our kids, though, I guess.
Telegraph - NEW - Where’s the investment needed to green the economy?
SPEAKING FOR THEMSELVES - Crusty wisdom
It's a new 'theme'. I make little or no comment, but simply share.
Saving the planet the Vivienne Westwood way
In this case I found it of interest for the topic, protagonist and author.
Saving the planet the Vivienne Westwood way
In this case I found it of interest for the topic, protagonist and author.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
It's a tough job...
Ethical dilemmas: is walking more polluting than driving?
Not to mention flying hither and thither in the name of 'awareness', it seems.
What a dilemma! Two hours relaxing in the soft leather seats of a billionaire's private jet or 20 hours behind the wheel of a hire car
One faced by many around the world, daily, I'm sure. Along with the other daunting choices faced. Has Mr. Harrabin got back from his scuba diving trip yet? Message and messengers again spring to mind.
Not to mention flying hither and thither in the name of 'awareness', it seems.
What a dilemma! Two hours relaxing in the soft leather seats of a billionaire's private jet or 20 hours behind the wheel of a hire car
One faced by many around the world, daily, I'm sure. Along with the other daunting choices faced. Has Mr. Harrabin got back from his scuba diving trip yet? Message and messengers again spring to mind.
Worth a read
An interesting view on the recent Copenhagen Climate conference..
What message, and whose, from Copenhagen?
Though it might be noted that even the author of this, in my view more nuanced and balanced view to almost all partisan reports I have been exposed/subjected to so far, falls a tad short on DOING, too.
What message, and whose, from Copenhagen?
Though it might be noted that even the author of this, in my view more nuanced and balanced view to almost all partisan reports I have been exposed/subjected to so far, falls a tad short on DOING, too.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Oh, the grand old Duke of York...
And when it was up it was up, and when it was down it was down...
Oceans are 'soaking up less CO2'
'Coral lab' offers acidity insight
There seems to be one constant, and that's the ability of environmental reporters to fly nice places and lounge around posting whatever latest wheeze is in the wind.
Not sure it's doing much for my understanding of climate, or my desire to cut back whilst they carry on their vital works.
Oceans are 'soaking up less CO2'
'Coral lab' offers acidity insight
There seems to be one constant, and that's the ability of environmental reporters to fly nice places and lounge around posting whatever latest wheeze is in the wind.
Not sure it's doing much for my understanding of climate, or my desire to cut back whilst they carry on their vital works.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
You want lies with that?
Is there a bug in your bin?
Yet another example of the box-ticking, target-meeting, bonus-generating process over real result culture we are spiraling down through daily. And I am an ardent environmental campaigner (though more in the areas of reuse and repair, which don't seem to 'inspire' some LAs and massively funded/rewarded quangos and their hands-length (when necessary) masters in Whitehall.... 'who cares if it's making things worse, we have an EU limit and will a) get fined if we miss and b) get lots of goodies if we exceed it! Result!
If it is about what we throw away, which may represent a modicum of opportunity, how in the name of anything is a microchip going to help unless it actually reads something like an RFID on every discarded item, and then traces it accurately to how sold it, bought it and then disposed of it.
As noted, all this might do is weigh the thing, regardless of any other aspects. As Al Hamilton suggests, it is ridiculously easy to skew, though by his suggestion, at best the LAs get their bonuses early, or at worst the householder gets slapped with a massive bill. Whichever way, my kids' futures on this planet are not served by trucks lugging more weight to make a flunky look good to his/her legions of equally unproductive bosses.
'Tonnage, tonnage. My kingdom for more tonnage!'
Addendum
There can, of course, be positives..
But in the spirit of enviROI I'd be fascinated to find out more about the realities surrounding such figures, especially the VAST comms budgets used to drive such figures, and how that money could have been used on tangibles (like coordinating a national system, as opposed to the woeful , contradictory, motley collection we have now) rather than 'awareness' leading to compliance on the part of the public doing work to drive the bonuses of the ever-duplicated boards approving these expenditures to get the public working to boost their salaries.
Almost a conflict of interest, IMHO. That said, in a culture where public servants get bonuses for doing their jobs, well or (insert headline on almost any topic from last decade here] I guess anything is possible.
Times - NEW - Knock, knock: it’s the council bin snoops
Yet another example of the box-ticking, target-meeting, bonus-generating process over real result culture we are spiraling down through daily. And I am an ardent environmental campaigner (though more in the areas of reuse and repair, which don't seem to 'inspire' some LAs and massively funded/rewarded quangos and their hands-length (when necessary) masters in Whitehall.... 'who cares if it's making things worse, we have an EU limit and will a) get fined if we miss and b) get lots of goodies if we exceed it! Result!
If it is about what we throw away, which may represent a modicum of opportunity, how in the name of anything is a microchip going to help unless it actually reads something like an RFID on every discarded item, and then traces it accurately to how sold it, bought it and then disposed of it.
As noted, all this might do is weigh the thing, regardless of any other aspects. As Al Hamilton suggests, it is ridiculously easy to skew, though by his suggestion, at best the LAs get their bonuses early, or at worst the householder gets slapped with a massive bill. Whichever way, my kids' futures on this planet are not served by trucks lugging more weight to make a flunky look good to his/her legions of equally unproductive bosses.
'Tonnage, tonnage. My kingdom for more tonnage!'
Addendum
There can, of course, be positives..
But in the spirit of enviROI I'd be fascinated to find out more about the realities surrounding such figures, especially the VAST comms budgets used to drive such figures, and how that money could have been used on tangibles (like coordinating a national system, as opposed to the woeful , contradictory, motley collection we have now) rather than 'awareness' leading to compliance on the part of the public doing work to drive the bonuses of the ever-duplicated boards approving these expenditures to get the public working to boost their salaries.
Almost a conflict of interest, IMHO. That said, in a culture where public servants get bonuses for doing their jobs, well or (insert headline on almost any topic from last decade here] I guess anything is possible.
Times - NEW - Knock, knock: it’s the council bin snoops
Share and share alike
I have a few things I keep to myself. For the rest, there's Junkk.com, and now...
creativecommons.org
creativecommons.org
Friday, March 13, 2009
Poles apart
That seems appropriate.
As the two 'sides' I am referring to seem to be mostly at each one, either proving or disproving glacier melts or ice thicknesses as the rest of us sit in the middle and either freeze, fry or drown as they dick about arguing.
Speaking of which, something has just sunk in, which I will pose as a question (as I don't know...yet).
It cannot have escaped the notice of anyone interested (and selected groups possibly not, demanding on their choice of media) that there have been two major climate conferences recently: one in Copenhagen (the bigger, and more reported.. in places), and one in New York (the less big, and hence (?) much less well reported). I think it is safe to say each were essentially pushing diverse views within the climate change debate, if billed in the name of 'discussing' problems and solutions.
Thing is, what the heck was going on if the most vocal and, one presumes qualified 'experts' in the field doing in two separate places, essentially agreeing with those who agree with them? Was this through choice, lack of invitation, rejection, selection... what?
Doesn't all this really rather defeat the object of scientific debate? Not to mention the cause of a better future for our kids.
As the two 'sides' I am referring to seem to be mostly at each one, either proving or disproving glacier melts or ice thicknesses as the rest of us sit in the middle and either freeze, fry or drown as they dick about arguing.
Speaking of which, something has just sunk in, which I will pose as a question (as I don't know...yet).
It cannot have escaped the notice of anyone interested (and selected groups possibly not, demanding on their choice of media) that there have been two major climate conferences recently: one in Copenhagen (the bigger, and more reported.. in places), and one in New York (the less big, and hence (?) much less well reported). I think it is safe to say each were essentially pushing diverse views within the climate change debate, if billed in the name of 'discussing' problems and solutions.
Thing is, what the heck was going on if the most vocal and, one presumes qualified 'experts' in the field doing in two separate places, essentially agreeing with those who agree with them? Was this through choice, lack of invitation, rejection, selection... what?
Doesn't all this really rather defeat the object of scientific debate? Not to mention the cause of a better future for our kids.
Coulda, shoulda, woulda...
There are many, complex matters of climatic concern worth taking seriously...
Time to change 'climate change'
My point has, is and will be that such as this is not, IMHO, exactly helping that to happen.
I think I gave up after the nth 'could' or 'might'. Whilst at least honest qualifiers, they were usually qualifying an extreme end.
A point rather picked up upon. And it wasn't until almost the end of the first page (not really worth wading through t'other 6...so far) that the first 'supportive' comment was made, rather ironically ignoring the author and referring to the 'deniers' being out in force. Hardly the most original, or cogent rebuttal that could be made.
I await with interest, and a bit of a sigh, 'climate breakdowners' being deemed the next pejorative stick to bash others with in the ongoing war of words. FWIW, as a communications professional, I'd say it's a move away from the evident main aim. In all this the anthropomorphic aspect seems to have been dropped, which is pretty key, plus of course the possible contribution of nature to man's pollutants as well. Maybe 'nature firsters'?
A bit like when I see Dear Leader 'representing' the UK, much as I believe in my cause, with such as this I sometimes have this guilty desire to be on another side. At least the arguments are often articulated a lot better, and with more humour.
Time to change 'climate change'
My point has, is and will be that such as this is not, IMHO, exactly helping that to happen.
I think I gave up after the nth 'could' or 'might'. Whilst at least honest qualifiers, they were usually qualifying an extreme end.
A point rather picked up upon. And it wasn't until almost the end of the first page (not really worth wading through t'other 6...so far) that the first 'supportive' comment was made, rather ironically ignoring the author and referring to the 'deniers' being out in force. Hardly the most original, or cogent rebuttal that could be made.
I await with interest, and a bit of a sigh, 'climate breakdowners' being deemed the next pejorative stick to bash others with in the ongoing war of words. FWIW, as a communications professional, I'd say it's a move away from the evident main aim. In all this the anthropomorphic aspect seems to have been dropped, which is pretty key, plus of course the possible contribution of nature to man's pollutants as well. Maybe 'nature firsters'?
A bit like when I see Dear Leader 'representing' the UK, much as I believe in my cause, with such as this I sometimes have this guilty desire to be on another side. At least the arguments are often articulated a lot better, and with more humour.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
It's called carpe... er.. moment
Act now before packs go from BAD to worse
See an opportunity...grab it:)
Not sure it is what was intended. Hey, what's the worse that can happen:)
See an opportunity...grab it:)
Not sure it is what was intended. Hey, what's the worse that can happen:)
NEWS/GO3 PR - Slashing energy use: Carbon reduction commitment to save businesses £1 billion by 2020
I have some issues with public money blown on high-£ comms efforts vs. doing.
However, this one is out there and looks to have value (even at a hefty 5MB), so I'll share. PR as received, E&EO:
Slashing energy use: Carbon reduction commitment to save businesses £1 billion by 2020
A new guide is published today by the Department of Energy and Climate Change to provide a helping hand to business to prepare for the introduction of the Carbon Reduction Commitment, which will begin in April 2010. The guide establishes who is covered by the scheme and guides the reader step-by-step through what they need to do to take part in the scheme.
The revenue raised from the scheme will be recycled back to participants on the basis of a league table -- so that those who are making most improvements in energy efficiency will be financially rewarded, and will receive recognition for their achievements.
The Government will further the roll out of the Carbon Reduction Commitment by launching a consultation today on the regulations which will form the basis of the initiative. Participating organisations will have to register with the Environment Agency who will administer the scheme.
However, this one is out there and looks to have value (even at a hefty 5MB), so I'll share. PR as received, E&EO:
Slashing energy use: Carbon reduction commitment to save businesses £1 billion by 2020
A new guide is published today by the Department of Energy and Climate Change to provide a helping hand to business to prepare for the introduction of the Carbon Reduction Commitment, which will begin in April 2010. The guide establishes who is covered by the scheme and guides the reader step-by-step through what they need to do to take part in the scheme.
The revenue raised from the scheme will be recycled back to participants on the basis of a league table -- so that those who are making most improvements in energy efficiency will be financially rewarded, and will receive recognition for their achievements.
The Government will further the roll out of the Carbon Reduction Commitment by launching a consultation today on the regulations which will form the basis of the initiative. Participating organisations will have to register with the Environment Agency who will administer the scheme.
The big IF...
New renewables to power 40 per cent of global electricity demand by 2050
Then they just had to spoil it...
'With adequate financial and political support...'
Plus of course, sensible enviROI checks and balances, I'm sure.
Ah well, it was exciting while it lasted.
ps: Love the disclaimer.
Then they just had to spoil it...
'With adequate financial and political support...'
Plus of course, sensible enviROI checks and balances, I'm sure.
Ah well, it was exciting while it lasted.
ps: Love the disclaimer.
ET, call green
For now just in a few West Coast USA cities, but I like where it's going..
3rd Whale
(We have plans for mobile apps here)
I hope to stay in touch with them.
3rd Whale
(We have plans for mobile apps here)
I hope to stay in touch with them.
The Law of Unintended Consequences, Redux
Or... why I am still dubious on some geo-engineering 'solutions' given a tad to much uncritical time.
Via Greenbang - Earth-cooling fix could cut solar power production
Via Greenbang - Earth-cooling fix could cut solar power production
What does cranking an eyebrow make me?
The climate change conference for deniers
'Whether you call them climate change deniers or skeptics'
Might I suggest one step might be for 'you' not to call 'them' either? I tend to view anything in the reportage field that starts on these bases to be about as much use as stuff that kicks of with 'Treehuggers' or "Hair shirts'. It all gets a bit tribal otherwise.
Perhaps great for those who like pointless spats and endless arguments, but usually not so helpful to sensible discussion on improving my kids' futures on the planet.
It is also my experience that very few who have those labels appended as a pejorative actually deny or are sceptical that the climate is changing. Most seem to be more interested in why and what might be done about it in a practical as opposed to idealistic sense, which means reserving the right to question certain dogmatically-held, and uncritically supported views.
Which is, IMHO, a tad different.
'Whether you call them climate change deniers or skeptics'
Might I suggest one step might be for 'you' not to call 'them' either? I tend to view anything in the reportage field that starts on these bases to be about as much use as stuff that kicks of with 'Treehuggers' or "Hair shirts'. It all gets a bit tribal otherwise.
Perhaps great for those who like pointless spats and endless arguments, but usually not so helpful to sensible discussion on improving my kids' futures on the planet.
It is also my experience that very few who have those labels appended as a pejorative actually deny or are sceptical that the climate is changing. Most seem to be more interested in why and what might be done about it in a practical as opposed to idealistic sense, which means reserving the right to question certain dogmatically-held, and uncritically supported views.
Which is, IMHO, a tad different.
CATEGORY - DEFORESTATION
Another category creation as this is another becoming quite an issue worthy of its own slot.
Check the labels below for other, previous posts until I get time to bring 'em over.
ARTICLE
Guardian - The great green land grab
Indy - Million acres of Guyanese rainforest to be saved in groundbreaking deal
Indy - I give up, says Brazilian minister who fought to save the rainforest - Hmmn, non optimal. When guys who care give up, things are really getting bad.
BBC - Charles urges forest logging halt
Shame that this coincides with the Brazilian Enviro Minister resigning.
But at least some are still worrying, and talking, and talking about it.
The BBC's environment analyst, Roger Harrabin, says that Prince Charles' observation that saving the forests is the cheapest and most effective way of cutting CO2 emissions is "widely acknowledged".
With insights like that, I can see why he is one of the heavy hitters in reporting.
Odd there's no mention of such as Johan Eliasch's Cool Earth and others by way of actual doing stuff.
Guardian - Fears for Brazil rainforest after environment minister quits
Guardian - Seeing the wood for the trees
Times - (actually very old, but I have just been advised of it) - How you can save the rainforest - Describes the genesis of Cool Earth, which I now need to bring over from the archives to here, below)
Guardian - The rainforest's last chance
Guardian - Not cool - I wish I could comment, but am currently not able to on the site. This does seem damned odd. To quote the first poster (and look at that title): 'I'm slightly bewildered by this article - it starts out as if its going to be an expose of a dodgy 'charity', then pulls back, accusing them of just bad marketing.'
Guardian - Can money save the Congo basin rainforest? - But just think of the numbers of folk who can be employed to acquire, collate, publish and obsess about these numbers. I feel a conference is needed.
Observer - Should I preserve a chunk of wilderness? - the key is in the URL header
BBC - Brazil launches rainforest fund -
FT - Prince believes City can save rainforests - Hope he's right
Indy - The City and keeping the rainforests alive
Gaurdian - Battle for the Amazon - I very much admire the interactivity of the author with posters. Not alwasy practical, but by heck informative!
Observer - Chainsaw massacre: They clean our air, reduce carbon and will save the planet ... So why are trees public enemy No1? -
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE
Eliasch Review on International deforestation published
The international community should enable rainforest countries to halve deforestation by 2020 and make the global forest sector 'carbon neutral' by 2030. This is the recommendation of an independent report to the Prime Minister published today.
The Eliasch Review, 'Climate Change: Financing Global Forests', is an independent report commissioned by the Prime Minister and led by Johan Eliasch, Special Representative on Deforestation. It provides a comprehensive analysis of the financing and mechanisms needed to support sustainable management of forests and reduce emissions associated with deforestation.
The full report can be seen online at http://www.occ.gov.uk.
The full PR is pretty long, so I just popped in the first segment. If you want it all I am sure it is linked somewhere.
Mind you, I couldn't actually find much from the link provided either.
Mr. Eliasch was once involved with the Conservatives but moved, I believe, because of this issue (those in power can do stuff- fair enough) rather than any political ideology.
He also founded Cool Earth, a mitigation scheme. Hopefully altruistic as any moves to put money in such schemes' pockets via such as the above might cause a problem, when the review finds that...
- The international community should aim to support forest nations to halve deforestation by 2020 and make the global forest sector 'carbon neutral' by 2030 - i.e. with emissions from forest loss balanced by new forest growth.
- Reducing emissions from deforestation should be fully included in any post-2012 global climate deal at Copenhagen.
- National Governments should develop their own strategies to combat deforestation in forest countries, including establishing baselines, targets and effective governance and distribution of finances.
- In the long term, the forest sector should be included in global carbon markets.
- Public and private sector funding will be needed in the short to medium term as carbon markets grow.
- The international community should provide support for capacity building where necessary. Total capacity building costs are estimated at up to $4 billion over 5 years for 40 forest nations.
Newsnight championed his efforts a few years ago for one night, and then dropped it when the next thing came along, as do most BBC news or science programmes. If they actually stuck with things, good or bad, up or down, and continued a sensible narrative throughout, I'd respect their commitment to the cause of better environmental practices more.
Guardian - Money doesn't grow on trees
Gaurdian - Seeing the wood
Times - Rich nations 'should pay poor ones billions a year to save rainforests'
Indy - Marina Silva: We must slash emissions to prevent destruction of the rainforest - Need to get my head around how reducing emissions stops a tree being cut down, mind.
Gaurdian - Schwarzenegger's bid to save the rainforest
Gaurdian - Poor Brazilians rejoice as loggers return to pillage the rainforest - Shows the dilemmas faced
Telegraph - WWF proposes economically savvy ways to rescue the Amazon - Don't get good news too often!
Indy - Revenge of the rainforest - Doesn't do to test karma, I guess.
Indy - NEW - Fate of the rainforest is 'irreversible' - are 'quote marks' the new 'could'?
Ah... '...could be much worse than previously predicted, new research suggests'.'... the Amazon may become "committed" to substantial change'. 'Asked if this meant Amazon dieback had already started, Dr Jones responded that it probably had..' '...these changes could be reversible only over very long time scales'.
Now I see the quoted author has used a definitive 'should' himself in the penultimate para, but I clicked this link because of 'Fate of the rainforest is 'irreversible''. Is 'is' the same as 'could', 'suggests', 'may' and 'probably'?
Not to detract from the seriousness of this research, or what it 'suggests' that may inform future actions, but I would like better context to get my head around it all, and what may then be proposed.
What was... is interesting to me (because I did not know so there is value here) is that this not so much about the effects caused by deforestation, but deforestation-causing effects.
However, with my limited experience, faced with finite resources (human, willpower, financial, etc), with what we've got I'd err on devoting much more to preventing further forest loss through cutting the things down in swathes now through direct human economic activity, especially we have only 100 months to avoid a tipping point.
Guardian - NEW - Amazon could shrink by 85% due to climate change, scientists say - Notice something? We've gained a 'could', but also some extra scientist(s). And the climate ones are wheeled in too. Thing is, I remain unsure what much of this may mean, or what is proposed.
Telegraph - NEW - Amazon rainforest at risk of ecological 'catastrophe' -
Times - NEW - 85 per cent of Amazonian rainforest at risk of destruction, researchers warn
INFORMATION
MITIGATION?
Cool Earth - also via posts here and here
worldlandtrust.org -
Check the labels below for other, previous posts until I get time to bring 'em over.
ARTICLE
Guardian - The great green land grab
Indy - Million acres of Guyanese rainforest to be saved in groundbreaking deal
Indy - I give up, says Brazilian minister who fought to save the rainforest - Hmmn, non optimal. When guys who care give up, things are really getting bad.
BBC - Charles urges forest logging halt
Shame that this coincides with the Brazilian Enviro Minister resigning.
But at least some are still worrying, and talking, and talking about it.
The BBC's environment analyst, Roger Harrabin, says that Prince Charles' observation that saving the forests is the cheapest and most effective way of cutting CO2 emissions is "widely acknowledged".
With insights like that, I can see why he is one of the heavy hitters in reporting.
Odd there's no mention of such as Johan Eliasch's Cool Earth and others by way of actual doing stuff.
Guardian - Fears for Brazil rainforest after environment minister quits
Guardian - Seeing the wood for the trees
Times - (actually very old, but I have just been advised of it) - How you can save the rainforest - Describes the genesis of Cool Earth, which I now need to bring over from the archives to here, below)
Guardian - The rainforest's last chance
Guardian - Not cool - I wish I could comment, but am currently not able to on the site. This does seem damned odd. To quote the first poster (and look at that title): 'I'm slightly bewildered by this article - it starts out as if its going to be an expose of a dodgy 'charity', then pulls back, accusing them of just bad marketing.'
Guardian - Can money save the Congo basin rainforest? - But just think of the numbers of folk who can be employed to acquire, collate, publish and obsess about these numbers. I feel a conference is needed.
Observer - Should I preserve a chunk of wilderness? - the key is in the URL header
BBC - Brazil launches rainforest fund -
FT - Prince believes City can save rainforests - Hope he's right
Indy - The City and keeping the rainforests alive
Gaurdian - Battle for the Amazon - I very much admire the interactivity of the author with posters. Not alwasy practical, but by heck informative!
Observer - Chainsaw massacre: They clean our air, reduce carbon and will save the planet ... So why are trees public enemy No1? -
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE
Eliasch Review on International deforestation published
The international community should enable rainforest countries to halve deforestation by 2020 and make the global forest sector 'carbon neutral' by 2030. This is the recommendation of an independent report to the Prime Minister published today.
The Eliasch Review, 'Climate Change: Financing Global Forests', is an independent report commissioned by the Prime Minister and led by Johan Eliasch, Special Representative on Deforestation. It provides a comprehensive analysis of the financing and mechanisms needed to support sustainable management of forests and reduce emissions associated with deforestation.
The full report can be seen online at http://www.occ.gov.uk.
The full PR is pretty long, so I just popped in the first segment. If you want it all I am sure it is linked somewhere.
Mind you, I couldn't actually find much from the link provided either.
Mr. Eliasch was once involved with the Conservatives but moved, I believe, because of this issue (those in power can do stuff- fair enough) rather than any political ideology.
He also founded Cool Earth, a mitigation scheme. Hopefully altruistic as any moves to put money in such schemes' pockets via such as the above might cause a problem, when the review finds that...
- The international community should aim to support forest nations to halve deforestation by 2020 and make the global forest sector 'carbon neutral' by 2030 - i.e. with emissions from forest loss balanced by new forest growth.
- Reducing emissions from deforestation should be fully included in any post-2012 global climate deal at Copenhagen.
- National Governments should develop their own strategies to combat deforestation in forest countries, including establishing baselines, targets and effective governance and distribution of finances.
- In the long term, the forest sector should be included in global carbon markets.
- Public and private sector funding will be needed in the short to medium term as carbon markets grow.
- The international community should provide support for capacity building where necessary. Total capacity building costs are estimated at up to $4 billion over 5 years for 40 forest nations.
Newsnight championed his efforts a few years ago for one night, and then dropped it when the next thing came along, as do most BBC news or science programmes. If they actually stuck with things, good or bad, up or down, and continued a sensible narrative throughout, I'd respect their commitment to the cause of better environmental practices more.
Guardian - Money doesn't grow on trees
Gaurdian - Seeing the wood
Times - Rich nations 'should pay poor ones billions a year to save rainforests'
Indy - Marina Silva: We must slash emissions to prevent destruction of the rainforest - Need to get my head around how reducing emissions stops a tree being cut down, mind.
Gaurdian - Schwarzenegger's bid to save the rainforest
Gaurdian - Poor Brazilians rejoice as loggers return to pillage the rainforest - Shows the dilemmas faced
Telegraph - WWF proposes economically savvy ways to rescue the Amazon - Don't get good news too often!
Indy - Revenge of the rainforest - Doesn't do to test karma, I guess.
Indy - NEW - Fate of the rainforest is 'irreversible' - are 'quote marks' the new 'could'?
Ah... '...could be much worse than previously predicted, new research suggests'.'... the Amazon may become "committed" to substantial change'. 'Asked if this meant Amazon dieback had already started, Dr Jones responded that it probably had..' '...these changes could be reversible only over very long time scales'.
Now I see the quoted author has used a definitive 'should' himself in the penultimate para, but I clicked this link because of 'Fate of the rainforest is 'irreversible''. Is 'is' the same as 'could', 'suggests', 'may' and 'probably'?
Not to detract from the seriousness of this research, or what it 'suggests' that may inform future actions, but I would like better context to get my head around it all, and what may then be proposed.
What was... is interesting to me (because I did not know so there is value here) is that this not so much about the effects caused by deforestation, but deforestation-causing effects.
However, with my limited experience, faced with finite resources (human, willpower, financial, etc), with what we've got I'd err on devoting much more to preventing further forest loss through cutting the things down in swathes now through direct human economic activity, especially we have only 100 months to avoid a tipping point.
Guardian - NEW - Amazon could shrink by 85% due to climate change, scientists say - Notice something? We've gained a 'could', but also some extra scientist(s). And the climate ones are wheeled in too. Thing is, I remain unsure what much of this may mean, or what is proposed.
Telegraph - NEW - Amazon rainforest at risk of ecological 'catastrophe' -
Times - NEW - 85 per cent of Amazonian rainforest at risk of destruction, researchers warn
INFORMATION
MITIGATION?
Cool Earth - also via posts here and here
worldlandtrust.org -
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Erk..
Household bills to soar because of climate change, claim scientists
Mind you, it does have two of my favourite MSM headline words, up front and together: 'claim' & 'scientists'.
Make of it what you will.
Mind you, it does have two of my favourite MSM headline words, up front and together: 'claim' & 'scientists'.
Make of it what you will.
Ask a silly question...
Why does the BBC treat us like morons over climate change?
'They' certainly are not doing themselves... or the cause of sensible science and/or reporting (of most topics, but especially contentious ones) many favours these days. Both with what they decide to include and... as important... leave out.
I am currently a climate neutral for now, erring on pessimism with a hint of 'man surely can't be helping much' to shape my interests. Hence I am in the process of finding out.
What doesn't help... me, my quest, or, IMHO, the cause being so avidly espoused by many with the best of intentions I'm sure, is having any contrary views either ignored, drowned (sorry) out or patronised.
The latest piece in this blog for example, and the comments in reply, left me high and dry (sorry again) and very confused. However, it did seem unusual that one set of information and hence views was reported upon, yet another was not. I'd have preferred both to be factually and objectively referred to and then let the hounds of the blogosphere run wild with link, fisk and opinion to taste. By erring in one direction, my attempts at understanding were inevitably shaped by the strenuous reactions. I can see how maintaining balance can be tricky, and serving up every contrary view an exercise in frustration and futility, but even on a factual basis alone (Newsnight's Susan Watt's 'edit' of Pres. Obama's speech for example) there is a growing form book. And I find it is having a highly diversionary and hence unfortunate effect. Because it hands open goals to blogs such as this. As do measurements of what 'will' happen, in hundreds of months or tens of meters. If what 'might'... 'doesn't', then there is a bit of fancy tap-dancing going to be required, and make genuine efforts all the harder.
So, most crucially (on top of a few other examples of 'narrative enhancing') my eyebrow is now by default very much cranked at anything in this area that Aunty originates.
Not optimal for the national broadcaster I have relied upon for decades, and am required to pay for.
I wish 'they' wouldn't do it.
Addendum - I was replied to, and so have responded, hopefully in a manner to make all 'sides' think more and pontificate less:
Thank you for some considered and supportive comments. It is refreshing not to get howled out for admitting to still be on a journey, but to be fair I pretty sure some who similarly confess to feeling the causes of climate change may lie at ma... personkind's door, and accept the many remedies proposed, would suffer a similar fate in less supportive arenas.
I have a little saying, which I probably nicked, that is 'not all that is green can be viewed in black or white', and I try and allow this to be my guide, with a willingness to listen to any argument so long as it is well presented... in a civilised way. If I see 'treehugger' I switch off just as much as I would with 'denier'.
For instance, I have to say that what Jonathan writes above was well put and does make good sense, but without having seen the piece in question it's hard to get a good handle on the context.
Hence, if it was about dealing with the consequences of climate change, man-made, worsened or otherwise, I may owe the reporter some apology. Because, of course, Jonathan, and by extension the piece, is quite right: to afford the same level of protection the barrier will need raising by that amount if the sea level rises by that amount. If that is all that the reporter was demonstrating, I also cannot argue. This not quite the same as using hard shoulders for rush hour overloads. Though both are coping strategies, at best.
In this regard I would commend the newer blog post (and, I am sure, any comments it generates) a few further on, reporting about the Copenhagen conference, where the issue of ''tis/t'isnt' absolutes is discussed in the face of trying to understand the future and prepare for it sensibly with what we have available. I sometimes have trouble with political rhetoric that seems better able to balance environmental checks with growing economies and populations, and media who can seamlessly go from finger-wagging reporting of much of the sacrifices required by us all, to gushing irony-free over a celeb who has just landed in their private jet having done something, somewhere 'to raise awareness'.
I guess this story struck a chord because I do get frustrated with absolutes, and especially being told what I believe, or at least what I should, by folk whose qualifications and indeed agendas I have come to doubt are quite up to the importance of the task.
Only the other week I attended a local climate change seminar (run by an energy agency funded by the council, funded by DEFRA, funded by the DTI, funded by HMG, funded by the EU), where the whole thing went downhill pretty fast.
I must confess to have been one of the causes. I had gone to get some tips and info on things I could do to save energy and money. What I got was a bunch of cards which I had to express my feelings about. The very first said 'London will be under 100m of water by 2050'. I merely opined that I wasn't sure if it might or might not, and that anyway seemed an awfully high figure that was being taken as read. As I say, all downhill from there as various protagonists hurtled to their two extremes and we ended up with a stalemate.
My point being that if the guys running this had not been quite so keen to make a point they obviously were already convinced about, by pushing the extremes, there might have been a much more fruitful and productive session for all. And, to take JohnT's point, if this is what is being done with possibly more cynical adults, I do concern myself with how my sons are being educated, in a balanced way, on the issues. Re-everything for sure, and totally do not waste, but do also get to grips with the consequences of reductions, and how that impacts on iPods & holiday trips.
Too often I fear such as the BBC leap on anything on this globe that is a bit odd, or different, weatherwise, and then infer a rather huge series of leaps from climate change to manmade cc, to pots of money 'preventing' it, first going on some talking a lot in sunny venues, and then throwing what's left at anything remotely 'green', and that's that.
Which, as this blog rather suggests, bogs more subtle discussions down when a few stick their hands up with doubts, and has the surely less than salutary result of putting average folk like me either off thinking about it, or possibly worse paying greater heed to those that say there is nothing to worry about. Especially if painted doomsday scenarios do not come to pass. This Chicken Little has not been proven wrong... yet. So caution does still seem prudent. But if a deadline passes, human nature will tend to interpret those who set that deadline as flawed goods, and be more resistant to 'revisions'.
I fear I do have concerns, and hence see and accept some changes to our lifestyles, but so far I am not best impressed with many from the politico-media establishment's efforts in helping me understand the issues enough to figure out what's best for me to support... for my kids' sake. For them, short to long term, I do have to weigh pocket and planet, the realities of which many commentators (especially those index-link pensioned ones) seem immune to. In this, I do not feel we are well served so far by the messengers who have taken it upon themselves to share the message, which patently is having trouble getting across, much less sticking, outside of some rather well-insulated (now there's a DOING initiative really worth throwing money at, rather than TV ads and magazine spreads about assessing my footprint. Stick more wool in my Mum's loft!) quarters.
'They' certainly are not doing themselves... or the cause of sensible science and/or reporting (of most topics, but especially contentious ones) many favours these days. Both with what they decide to include and... as important... leave out.
I am currently a climate neutral for now, erring on pessimism with a hint of 'man surely can't be helping much' to shape my interests. Hence I am in the process of finding out.
What doesn't help... me, my quest, or, IMHO, the cause being so avidly espoused by many with the best of intentions I'm sure, is having any contrary views either ignored, drowned (sorry) out or patronised.
The latest piece in this blog for example, and the comments in reply, left me high and dry (sorry again) and very confused. However, it did seem unusual that one set of information and hence views was reported upon, yet another was not. I'd have preferred both to be factually and objectively referred to and then let the hounds of the blogosphere run wild with link, fisk and opinion to taste. By erring in one direction, my attempts at understanding were inevitably shaped by the strenuous reactions. I can see how maintaining balance can be tricky, and serving up every contrary view an exercise in frustration and futility, but even on a factual basis alone (Newsnight's Susan Watt's 'edit' of Pres. Obama's speech for example) there is a growing form book. And I find it is having a highly diversionary and hence unfortunate effect. Because it hands open goals to blogs such as this. As do measurements of what 'will' happen, in hundreds of months or tens of meters. If what 'might'... 'doesn't', then there is a bit of fancy tap-dancing going to be required, and make genuine efforts all the harder.
So, most crucially (on top of a few other examples of 'narrative enhancing') my eyebrow is now by default very much cranked at anything in this area that Aunty originates.
Not optimal for the national broadcaster I have relied upon for decades, and am required to pay for.
I wish 'they' wouldn't do it.
Addendum - I was replied to, and so have responded, hopefully in a manner to make all 'sides' think more and pontificate less:
Thank you for some considered and supportive comments. It is refreshing not to get howled out for admitting to still be on a journey, but to be fair I pretty sure some who similarly confess to feeling the causes of climate change may lie at ma... personkind's door, and accept the many remedies proposed, would suffer a similar fate in less supportive arenas.
I have a little saying, which I probably nicked, that is 'not all that is green can be viewed in black or white', and I try and allow this to be my guide, with a willingness to listen to any argument so long as it is well presented... in a civilised way. If I see 'treehugger' I switch off just as much as I would with 'denier'.
For instance, I have to say that what Jonathan writes above was well put and does make good sense, but without having seen the piece in question it's hard to get a good handle on the context.
Hence, if it was about dealing with the consequences of climate change, man-made, worsened or otherwise, I may owe the reporter some apology. Because, of course, Jonathan, and by extension the piece, is quite right: to afford the same level of protection the barrier will need raising by that amount if the sea level rises by that amount. If that is all that the reporter was demonstrating, I also cannot argue. This not quite the same as using hard shoulders for rush hour overloads. Though both are coping strategies, at best.
In this regard I would commend the newer blog post (and, I am sure, any comments it generates) a few further on, reporting about the Copenhagen conference, where the issue of ''tis/t'isnt' absolutes is discussed in the face of trying to understand the future and prepare for it sensibly with what we have available. I sometimes have trouble with political rhetoric that seems better able to balance environmental checks with growing economies and populations, and media who can seamlessly go from finger-wagging reporting of much of the sacrifices required by us all, to gushing irony-free over a celeb who has just landed in their private jet having done something, somewhere 'to raise awareness'.
I guess this story struck a chord because I do get frustrated with absolutes, and especially being told what I believe, or at least what I should, by folk whose qualifications and indeed agendas I have come to doubt are quite up to the importance of the task.
Only the other week I attended a local climate change seminar (run by an energy agency funded by the council, funded by DEFRA, funded by the DTI, funded by HMG, funded by the EU), where the whole thing went downhill pretty fast.
I must confess to have been one of the causes. I had gone to get some tips and info on things I could do to save energy and money. What I got was a bunch of cards which I had to express my feelings about. The very first said 'London will be under 100m of water by 2050'. I merely opined that I wasn't sure if it might or might not, and that anyway seemed an awfully high figure that was being taken as read. As I say, all downhill from there as various protagonists hurtled to their two extremes and we ended up with a stalemate.
My point being that if the guys running this had not been quite so keen to make a point they obviously were already convinced about, by pushing the extremes, there might have been a much more fruitful and productive session for all. And, to take JohnT's point, if this is what is being done with possibly more cynical adults, I do concern myself with how my sons are being educated, in a balanced way, on the issues. Re-everything for sure, and totally do not waste, but do also get to grips with the consequences of reductions, and how that impacts on iPods & holiday trips.
Too often I fear such as the BBC leap on anything on this globe that is a bit odd, or different, weatherwise, and then infer a rather huge series of leaps from climate change to manmade cc, to pots of money 'preventing' it, first going on some talking a lot in sunny venues, and then throwing what's left at anything remotely 'green', and that's that.
Which, as this blog rather suggests, bogs more subtle discussions down when a few stick their hands up with doubts, and has the surely less than salutary result of putting average folk like me either off thinking about it, or possibly worse paying greater heed to those that say there is nothing to worry about. Especially if painted doomsday scenarios do not come to pass. This Chicken Little has not been proven wrong... yet. So caution does still seem prudent. But if a deadline passes, human nature will tend to interpret those who set that deadline as flawed goods, and be more resistant to 'revisions'.
I fear I do have concerns, and hence see and accept some changes to our lifestyles, but so far I am not best impressed with many from the politico-media establishment's efforts in helping me understand the issues enough to figure out what's best for me to support... for my kids' sake. For them, short to long term, I do have to weigh pocket and planet, the realities of which many commentators (especially those index-link pensioned ones) seem immune to. In this, I do not feel we are well served so far by the messengers who have taken it upon themselves to share the message, which patently is having trouble getting across, much less sticking, outside of some rather well-insulated (now there's a DOING initiative really worth throwing money at, rather than TV ads and magazine spreads about assessing my footprint. Stick more wool in my Mum's loft!) quarters.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Are you... a NIMBY?
This has been prompted by a discussion group, in turn prompted by:
Nimbyism is 'hardening' in Britain..
I fear this term is often rather in the same category as a few other, if not pejoratives, but at least intentionally loaded critiques, along with 'denier' or 'treehugger', that do not serve the cause of rational debate very well.
As one who can think if nothing more impressive to look at than a ridge of rotating turbines, I have to accept that there are those who might not.
And if I'm not too bothered one way or t'other as I pass by, it might be worth giving pause to think of those who might have had one view and are now faced with another... daily.
Plus there are other issues to be sensitive to. Those who post here regularly are more informed and qualified than eye to confirm this, but it is my understanding that there is some noise pollution for homes close by. Also that house prices in the immediate area can be unfavourably affected.
These are legitimate concerns. And I sometimes feel those not on the wrong end of such initiatives, whilst be very passionate in defence of the big picture, can also be a tad insensitive in their critiques. And, in so doing, get a few backs up in the process. Which, more often than not, can introduce... 'delays'.
I, for one, rather shudder when it see it wielded, especially when picked up by the MSM on a slow news day.
Addendum:
I got a cheery reply. Now, 'they' have started a competition to find alternatives. Current top pick is 'obfuscators'. Look what I started:(
Here's what I wrote:
I won't be joining in, but those who feel so inspired may get some fodder from this and the comments in response:
Monbiot's royal flush: Top 10 climate change deniers*
I did note one point made that of that list there were some who were there despite not disputing the fact that climate was changing, or even going further, but seemed to have got on the 'wrong side' by having different thoughts on the best way to address the future as a consequence.
So... be careful with those definitions; they can come back on one.
I look forward to to the winning entry.
Have a lovely evening, which it is out of my window. Off down the shed to make some stuff out of some junk with the kids... by way of example.
Peter
Climatically neutral, reduction positive, waste negative, talk-talk dubious, walk-walk advocate
* I was moved, of course, to chip in..
Just wondrin', having read the piece and as many of the replies as I could cope with, if this ad hominem, ''tis/t'isnt spat between a few folk who seem to be making a lot of career headways out of staking claims on the far extremes, and their various entrenched supporters, are actually DOING anything worthwhile to make the future any better for my kids?
From what I have read here... not so much.
Maybe it is better this way. Lord help the future if most I have read actually get in charge of anything based on their ability to persuade and/or lead.
Addendum 2:
Another reply. Slightly less cheery. And one which rather leads me to think that my plea fell on deaf ears. Some views, and the blogs that cater to them, are too entrenched it seems. And so various groups wallow in their group thinking, rejecting and indeed forcing out any views that do not conform to the ones they hold, no matter how sincere or rationally held. Hardly the best way forward IMHO...
I suggest that you look to the Climate progress blog by Joe Romm, particularly at a recent item on anti-science syndrome (ASS), wherein those who are complete deniers are referred to as ASS wholes!
http://climateprogress.org/2009/01/05/anthony-watts-up-with-that-anti-science-denier-website-weblog-awards/
Now, what's the betting the only reaction we're likely to get/hear about is something equally 'colourful' in return. Ho hum. Whatever happened to addressing the issues and not the person?
Nimbyism is 'hardening' in Britain..
I fear this term is often rather in the same category as a few other, if not pejoratives, but at least intentionally loaded critiques, along with 'denier' or 'treehugger', that do not serve the cause of rational debate very well.
As one who can think if nothing more impressive to look at than a ridge of rotating turbines, I have to accept that there are those who might not.
And if I'm not too bothered one way or t'other as I pass by, it might be worth giving pause to think of those who might have had one view and are now faced with another... daily.
Plus there are other issues to be sensitive to. Those who post here regularly are more informed and qualified than eye to confirm this, but it is my understanding that there is some noise pollution for homes close by. Also that house prices in the immediate area can be unfavourably affected.
These are legitimate concerns. And I sometimes feel those not on the wrong end of such initiatives, whilst be very passionate in defence of the big picture, can also be a tad insensitive in their critiques. And, in so doing, get a few backs up in the process. Which, more often than not, can introduce... 'delays'.
I, for one, rather shudder when it see it wielded, especially when picked up by the MSM on a slow news day.
Addendum:
I got a cheery reply. Now, 'they' have started a competition to find alternatives. Current top pick is 'obfuscators'. Look what I started:(
Here's what I wrote:
I won't be joining in, but those who feel so inspired may get some fodder from this and the comments in response:
Monbiot's royal flush: Top 10 climate change deniers*
I did note one point made that of that list there were some who were there despite not disputing the fact that climate was changing, or even going further, but seemed to have got on the 'wrong side' by having different thoughts on the best way to address the future as a consequence.
So... be careful with those definitions; they can come back on one.
I look forward to to the winning entry.
Have a lovely evening, which it is out of my window. Off down the shed to make some stuff out of some junk with the kids... by way of example.
Peter
Climatically neutral, reduction positive, waste negative, talk-talk dubious, walk-walk advocate
* I was moved, of course, to chip in..
Just wondrin', having read the piece and as many of the replies as I could cope with, if this ad hominem, ''tis/t'isnt spat between a few folk who seem to be making a lot of career headways out of staking claims on the far extremes, and their various entrenched supporters, are actually DOING anything worthwhile to make the future any better for my kids?
From what I have read here... not so much.
Maybe it is better this way. Lord help the future if most I have read actually get in charge of anything based on their ability to persuade and/or lead.
Addendum 2:
Another reply. Slightly less cheery. And one which rather leads me to think that my plea fell on deaf ears. Some views, and the blogs that cater to them, are too entrenched it seems. And so various groups wallow in their group thinking, rejecting and indeed forcing out any views that do not conform to the ones they hold, no matter how sincere or rationally held. Hardly the best way forward IMHO...
I suggest that you look to the Climate progress blog by Joe Romm, particularly at a recent item on anti-science syndrome (ASS), wherein those who are complete deniers are referred to as ASS wholes!
http://climateprogress.org/2009/01/05/anthony-watts-up-with-that-anti-science-denier-website-weblog-awards/
Now, what's the betting the only reaction we're likely to get/hear about is something equally 'colourful' in return. Ho hum. Whatever happened to addressing the issues and not the person?
Choose your cause carefully...
Comic Relief climbers return home
'...after arriving at RAF Northolt in an executive jet.'
At what cost... to planet... and the reduced coffers those they were 'saving'?
Not something the BBC seems to have concerned itself with mu... er... at all.
Hell indeed.
Addendum:
Same posting: 'More bad news' on climate change - yes folks, there next batch of D-listers are revving up their agents to see how to look like they care whilst getting acres of free publicity 'in a good cause' whilst bonding in exotic locations.
'...after arriving at RAF Northolt in an executive jet.'
At what cost... to planet... and the reduced coffers those they were 'saving'?
Not something the BBC seems to have concerned itself with mu... er... at all.
Hell indeed.
Addendum:
Same posting: 'More bad news' on climate change - yes folks, there next batch of D-listers are revving up their agents to see how to look like they care whilst getting acres of free publicity 'in a good cause' whilst bonding in exotic locations.
CATEGORY - UK POSTCODE GREEN INFO
Another I may be duplicating/jumbling up, but this way may work...
Especially if told!
Gloucestershire - GL
Information
glosgreenguide.co.uk
vision21
News
Herefordshire - HR
Information
Herefordshire Council Environment Page
you@home - a nifty repair service I found
News
LONDON - N, S, E, EC, W
Information
journeyplanner - NEW
News
Somerset - TA, BA, Bath & North Somerset - BS
Information
News
Junkk - Somerset is UK’s top recycling county
Especially if told!
Gloucestershire - GL
Information
glosgreenguide.co.uk
vision21
News
Herefordshire - HR
Information
Herefordshire Council Environment Page
you@home - a nifty repair service I found
News
LONDON - N, S, E, EC, W
Information
journeyplanner - NEW
News
Somerset - TA, BA, Bath & North Somerset - BS
Information
News
Junkk - Somerset is UK’s top recycling county
Way too rational
Are there any more seats left on top?
What we want is extremes! That's what the activist groups and ratings-hungry media need... and thrive on.
Just like with climate change. I was at an event recently designed to raise 'awareness' of the issue, and foolishly accepted a group invitation to share my views, which are, roughly, that I think the climate is behaving in a negative way, and it's quite possible that the actions of man may not be helping, so I'll do all I can in mitigation but would need more convincing on some more drastic advocacies that could consume resources in an equally damaging way.
Of course, I please none present and was universally castigated for being a sceptic, denier, hairshirt and treehugger in equal measure.
For this reason, I consider any venturing near issues of population as very brave indeed. Especially if you mention Gaza in the same breath.
What we want is extremes! That's what the activist groups and ratings-hungry media need... and thrive on.
Just like with climate change. I was at an event recently designed to raise 'awareness' of the issue, and foolishly accepted a group invitation to share my views, which are, roughly, that I think the climate is behaving in a negative way, and it's quite possible that the actions of man may not be helping, so I'll do all I can in mitigation but would need more convincing on some more drastic advocacies that could consume resources in an equally damaging way.
Of course, I please none present and was universally castigated for being a sceptic, denier, hairshirt and treehugger in equal measure.
For this reason, I consider any venturing near issues of population as very brave indeed. Especially if you mention Gaza in the same breath.
Adding up numbers. Or not.
There's what is. And there is what isn't. And then there is what people say... and gets reported.
Indy Letters - Act now to avoid climate calamity
Sir Reginald Harland is incorrect (letter, 7 March) when he implies that there will be plenty of electricity available overnight without a large use of fossil fuels.
I do know that in the UK my last bill for electricity, 842kwh, cost me £118.34 and that in France my last bill, for 1,036 kwh, cost me €83.19
Now, without knowing who is accurate it's hard to comment, but these days I tend to err on those in the letters pages (and blogs) than those given public pulpits because they are from the establishment/MSM club.
Indy Letters - Act now to avoid climate calamity
Sir Reginald Harland is incorrect (letter, 7 March) when he implies that there will be plenty of electricity available overnight without a large use of fossil fuels.
I do know that in the UK my last bill for electricity, 842kwh, cost me £118.34 and that in France my last bill, for 1,036 kwh, cost me €83.19
Now, without knowing who is accurate it's hard to comment, but these days I tend to err on those in the letters pages (and blogs) than those given public pulpits because they are from the establishment/MSM club.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)