Sunday, October 11, 2009

One swallow does not a summer make

... and I have managed to become the anti-christ of two extremes of the 'climate' debate.


I could see where this was going...

The BBC’s amazing U-turn on climate change

...and decided to pitch in and make a case for the middle ground (whilst trying to point out to the extremes that the whole issue is highly complex and waaay above petty tribal tallies... such as trying to claim a single BBC report is a 'U-turn'*) but also firmly staking out how I think it is too important to be left any more to the various protagonists who have pitched in so far.

Of course it is but a small aspect of a very complex overall debate.

However, it comes at a point when public trust is being demanded from some quarters that have less than stellar records in this regard, in the run up to some fairly honking great decisions with some hefty, long term price tags attached.

I personally believe the climate is changing, and for the worse, and that ‘we’ sure as heck are not helping so it’s well worth proceeding with caution and mitigating sensibly wherever and whenever we can.

Just as the penned words of one media employee mean diddly squat to the totality, what I write here is NOT support for the ‘all is fine’ brigade to keep on as they have, but I fully concede that a few rather high profile, possibly well-meaning eco types have tried to have their cake and eat it, and it’s gone off.

We need new advocates. But seeing how comfortable most of the ‘green elite’ have become, I am not hopeful.

Because I believe, to date, the communication of the issues to the public (who are key) have been totally mismanaged by usually self-selected cabals in support of often unelected but usually totally inept / scientifically -ignorant / lobbyphilic / target-centric complementary boxtickocracies in the politico / activist / quango / media establishment who can come up with such as this:

‘Climate change sceptics are to be targeted in a hard-hitting [£6M - that would buy a lot of winter insulation, just as $35M from some other awareness-addicted clowns would buy a few water wells ] government advertising campaign that will be the first to state unequivocally that Man is causing global warming and endangering life on Earth.

If the Copenhagen missions from other countries are guided by equal groupings, then the planet is well and truly stuffed.

You persuade through the power of your argument and being honest, un-hypocritical and clear with your audience. The powers that be are now highly compromised in this regard, having been mostly addicted to policies of fine, frighten, guilt and threat too often in pursuit of power and control over legitimate issues of concern that do need addressing. And have been waaaay too cavalier in boosting anything that served their causes. Especially whilst conveniently ignoring a bunch of other stuff which was either too hard or didn’t involve a tariff or taxable offset.

And now it’s all coming back to bite ‘em on the tush they’ll be screaming ist/zi/inger like Milliband. D when he doesn’t get the pudding he wanted at his birthday party.
I want a better planet for my kids, but I am not prepared to consign them to living it in a small box eating Soylent Green and not going anywhere. Because all that mindset buys is a bit more time.

We need better, more creative minds on this.

All the current batch have managed to do is to make my job a ton more difficult, as I spend all my waking hours DOING stuff on ways to reduce waste and improve efficiencies.

It’s saving planet AND pocket. But even with those clear plusses the audience needs to feel the effort is worth it. Stuff like this either confuses them or puts them off, and gets the door slammed in my face, and those like me.

I can already feel the ‘traitor to the cause’ knives sharpening, but crushing other views has backfired at near every turn, and I think, for the sake of my kids, to save the tree we need to cut out the dead wood and start again.

Heaven knows how, but the alternative status quo under the current regimes is a dead-end creek that stinks.

It got noticed, but not always in a good way:( So I hope this comes across as suitably firm in rejection of partisan demands, but fair:

I have a a dream, and that is meeting the Marketing Director Kellogg’s to pitch my idea for making all their cereal packs reusable.

And I’ll kick off by saying ‘It would all just be junk but for that extra Special K’

That way everyone involved (brand, customer and me) can make money and help the future.
I prefer to go for incentive and reward. Seems to be more reliable.

If you’d like to debate any points I’m making I’m cool. But if it’s playing with names and my calling… not so much.

Just off a BBC post board where some climate change ‘enthusiasts’ (hard to get a snappy descriptor that is accurate and/or not a silly pejorative) reckon those who don’t follow their ‘way’ blindly need to be jailed.

It gets heated. And it seems like too many prefer that to illumination.

Not interested.

Ah well, off now to visit Mum in her home to tell her all we have done this week with Junkk and are going to DO next. Peace will reign. Briefly.

Nowt like being an equal opportunity offender.


One swallow does not a summer make.

So I do wonder if it is fair, or accurate, to totally project the reporting of but one employee onto the ‘views’ of a corporation, not that ‘they’ should have ‘views’ one way or t’other in the first place. part of the problem, I suspect.

As one interested, I am not clear as to Mr. Hudson’s status, at least as ‘its’ climate change correspondent.

There are surely others in the ‘reporting/corresponding/editing mix (Harrabin, Black, etc), so do they enjoy other, semantically different and hence significant titles, and no specific brief on this odd, rather hard to pin-down entity… climate change?

There is however significance to be sure to be read into the fact that this solo chap’s piece has been seen to stray from… well… best not to get into that.

I sense others have the time and energy to square off on the consequences in days to come.

Addendum: Yet more form the funny farm. There really seems a need on the parst of soem that you offer total fealty to their respective religions. Spooky.

In this day and age, is having your own mind so scary to some?

Still with worrying about the who and less worried with the what of the discussion, eh?
Oddly, just like that other interesting bunch over at Richard Black's (another BBC green/eco climate/whatever reporter/correspendent/editor/whatever (I am sure the difference matters... to someone) who seem so emboldened with the... ahem.. 'success' of a certain Ms. Abbess with Roger Harrabin (another BBC, etc) they seem to figure they, and only they are 'the way', and any dissent is to be dealt with harshly.

I tend to follow a less certain, less dogmatic line. And in a sad era of a need to belong to a tribe, it's my own.

The extra feedback JustinXS and geofftheref on the main protagonist is appreciated and encouraging. I have long had more than a concern that events were being interpreted, narratives enhanced and represenations made fair by folk whose popular reach was not quite matched by their qualifications in matters of scientific investigation and explanation. Mr. Hudson seems a rare, and most welcome exception to the 'rule'. Still just 'a' bloke, mind.

Can't speak for t'other (seems very nice) fellow I seem to be associated with coincidentally on the basis of no more than names with two k's, but since you asked so nicely... oh.. you didn't.
So, sorry, cannot find it in me to oblige:)

It's kind of weird to find myself as an equal opportunity 'offender', as by my stance I seem to have incurred the attention, and ire, of both climate optimists AND pessimists (the best non-judgmental descriptor I can muster for the two bookend camps for whom 'you are either with us or against us' seem shared mantras) simultaneously.

Which is quite a feat, if one thinks about it.

No comments: