Every so often a site comes along that I just like.
This is one such: unclutterer.com
For no better reason than that, I am happy to share:)
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Climate of confusion
Newsnight is one of the more significant news/current affairs programmes we have in this country.
That's not saying a lot.
I watched this, and the protagonists selected, with my jaw on the ground.
How much has changed?
Just watched the chat... 'legally-binding' came up a lot. Lot of eggs in the kitchen?
I just hope that, whatever does get discussed, agreed, and bound up, most people will move beyond the fact that a treaty has been established to what it's actually committing folk to and with what in mind.
With the current level of global boxtickocracy and short-term legacy jockeying, I'll be fascinated whether emissions actually get reduced, or just shunted around a lot more as various interested parties take their cut.
Monday 9 November 2009
Just now watched Mr. Rowlatt's kitchen cabinet meeting.
If this is the calibre of political heft and serious journalism surrounding this huge, complex, vital issue that we may expect... oh.
I do indeed now expect that President 'only if it's going to look good' O will swing by to bestow blessings on a bit of a thing... and no one present, observing or hoping to be adequately informed will end up having the slightest clue who has committed to what and whether it will make a blind bit of difference - save to boost business and first class seat uptake, convention hotel and 5 star restaurant bookings, and a few folks' golf handicaps. These things always seem to happen, a lot, in nice places.
Meanwhile populations will grow, economies will need to expand, forests will be felled, green fields will turn first brown and then get concreted over, affordably, runways will be added, nukes will get commissioned... and a BBC 'science' moppet will point at the business end of a Tesla as others will Copenhagen and declaim 'Look... it's not emitting, and meeting all sorts of lovely bonus-driving, fine-avoiding, lobby-pleasing targets'. So long as such things make sense environmentally and practically in complement with other socio-economic parameters, fine. If not, its just a silly game, with the only winners being those on the pitch and a few in the sponsors' and media boxes, with the rest paying.
However, it is not enough to observe and/or critique, so when the opportunity presents I will grab it:
Update on your questions for Ed Miliband
What will be the outcome to total global emissions of a 'successful' outcome?
Then... where from? Up or down? Country by country, industry by industry. Plus cost impositions... or gains, as a consequence.
And of these what % will be tangible, practical, genuine enviROI+ reductions, and what % redistribution or redesignation?
How, with expanding populations encroaching or dependent on ever more territory and resources can the growing economy mantra from all governments to support these be satisfied without further increases in consumption and hence pollution vs. in the situation suggested, held and reduced?
There is no such thing as a free lunch. What, honestly, is going to have to give? In terms a worker in a factory making stuff to sell and be consumed can relate to job wise, to the lifestyle-centric mind of a student with an eye on the latest iPhone or LCD TV from John Lewis (non-list) can relate to. For good or ill.
In committing all efforts and funds to avoiding/mitigating the potential consequences of (A)GW, has any thought been given to the possibility that it is (now/already, as claimed by some in high office) unavoidable (whatever the cause) and contingencies made to support best practice coping mechanisms?
Or are all bets on 'man' being the sole cause, and hence all efforts by our race should be committed to reversing our impacts?
In case this proves incorrect, and/or the efforts made prove ineffective/insufficient, what will be the consequences to this country?
I am hoping he might answer some, and the key ones, and not waffle. Or choose a distracting line.
I have tried to be careful to avoid any hint that my concern is on whether PMWNCC is happening as per any 'line' or fact to prevent the inevitable extreme artillery barrages. My interest is in what he and his merry crew have actually considered or, and equally important, not considered around the consequences of a 'warming' planet.
I just had a mate call me up in a rage. He took the now redundant RE:boxes to the bring site as his new green wheelie has arrived to improve things. They wouldn't take it and suggested he pop over the road and pop it in the landfill skip. Somewhere a box is binned and another is ticked or a target in one area is met that is not counted against one lost in another. And a planet weeps another tear.
But I will never stop trying to find tangible, practical, enviROI+ solutions wherever and whenever I can. Always have (wow, was it 5 years ago? And those boxes had years left in them yet). Always will. If I am able.
That's not saying a lot.
I watched this, and the protagonists selected, with my jaw on the ground.
How much has changed?
Just watched the chat... 'legally-binding' came up a lot. Lot of eggs in the kitchen?
I just hope that, whatever does get discussed, agreed, and bound up, most people will move beyond the fact that a treaty has been established to what it's actually committing folk to and with what in mind.
With the current level of global boxtickocracy and short-term legacy jockeying, I'll be fascinated whether emissions actually get reduced, or just shunted around a lot more as various interested parties take their cut.
Monday 9 November 2009
Just now watched Mr. Rowlatt's kitchen cabinet meeting.
If this is the calibre of political heft and serious journalism surrounding this huge, complex, vital issue that we may expect... oh.
I do indeed now expect that President 'only if it's going to look good' O will swing by to bestow blessings on a bit of a thing... and no one present, observing or hoping to be adequately informed will end up having the slightest clue who has committed to what and whether it will make a blind bit of difference - save to boost business and first class seat uptake, convention hotel and 5 star restaurant bookings, and a few folks' golf handicaps. These things always seem to happen, a lot, in nice places.
Meanwhile populations will grow, economies will need to expand, forests will be felled, green fields will turn first brown and then get concreted over, affordably, runways will be added, nukes will get commissioned... and a BBC 'science' moppet will point at the business end of a Tesla as others will Copenhagen and declaim 'Look... it's not emitting, and meeting all sorts of lovely bonus-driving, fine-avoiding, lobby-pleasing targets'. So long as such things make sense environmentally and practically in complement with other socio-economic parameters, fine. If not, its just a silly game, with the only winners being those on the pitch and a few in the sponsors' and media boxes, with the rest paying.
However, it is not enough to observe and/or critique, so when the opportunity presents I will grab it:
Update on your questions for Ed Miliband
What will be the outcome to total global emissions of a 'successful' outcome?
Then... where from? Up or down? Country by country, industry by industry. Plus cost impositions... or gains, as a consequence.
And of these what % will be tangible, practical, genuine enviROI+ reductions, and what % redistribution or redesignation?
How, with expanding populations encroaching or dependent on ever more territory and resources can the growing economy mantra from all governments to support these be satisfied without further increases in consumption and hence pollution vs. in the situation suggested, held and reduced?
There is no such thing as a free lunch. What, honestly, is going to have to give? In terms a worker in a factory making stuff to sell and be consumed can relate to job wise, to the lifestyle-centric mind of a student with an eye on the latest iPhone or LCD TV from John Lewis (non-list) can relate to. For good or ill.
In committing all efforts and funds to avoiding/mitigating the potential consequences of (A)GW, has any thought been given to the possibility that it is (now/already, as claimed by some in high office) unavoidable (whatever the cause) and contingencies made to support best practice coping mechanisms?
Or are all bets on 'man' being the sole cause, and hence all efforts by our race should be committed to reversing our impacts?
In case this proves incorrect, and/or the efforts made prove ineffective/insufficient, what will be the consequences to this country?
I am hoping he might answer some, and the key ones, and not waffle. Or choose a distracting line.
I have tried to be careful to avoid any hint that my concern is on whether PMWNCC is happening as per any 'line' or fact to prevent the inevitable extreme artillery barrages. My interest is in what he and his merry crew have actually considered or, and equally important, not considered around the consequences of a 'warming' planet.
I just had a mate call me up in a rage. He took the now redundant RE:boxes to the bring site as his new green wheelie has arrived to improve things. They wouldn't take it and suggested he pop over the road and pop it in the landfill skip. Somewhere a box is binned and another is ticked or a target in one area is met that is not counted against one lost in another. And a planet weeps another tear.
But I will never stop trying to find tangible, practical, enviROI+ solutions wherever and whenever I can. Always have (wow, was it 5 years ago? And those boxes had years left in them yet). Always will. If I am able.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)