Junkk Male RE:View: 10 Mar 2009

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?

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.

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.

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.

The Re-hiearchy, and who rules? With what?

How much Co2 in a Coke?

And how much PR, CSR and sales from ADDING reuse to the deal.

Of those listed, two are tamper-evident users. Coke of course owns Oasis, which is applicable, too.

RE:tie anyone?

That said, I do wonder if any consumer will really get their heads around all these numbers as they peruse the aisles. So.... maybe having a freebie with an end-benefit built-in may add to the appeal?

Junkk Male RE:View