Impacts of the smoking ban

These seem to be rather open to debate and interpretation at the moment, as NHS spokespeople claim it has helped significantly, especially in helping people to quit (though if you look at the numbers, I find it difficult to figure out how they substantiate this claim), whilst other evidence suggests, well, exactly the opposite, especially amongst younger people.

And as our Gov ponders the banning of display advertising for all tobacco products, essentially making them a 'hidden behind the shelf commodity' ('anything for the weekend, sir?'), I will pass on this amusing (well, I found it amusing) little story from our local evening paper the other night. The correspondent wrote that he no longer ever visits any of his local pubs and bars because 'bad body odours' (yes, I know exactly what he means, someone with BO is now extremely noticeable) from other people make it insufferable for him to enjoy a beer any more. He makes the point that smoke at least obscured a lot of what he considers to be far worse smells. (To reinforce the point, when asked why she had stopped going to local nightclubs, my eldest surprisingly opined - 'they just stink of stale sweat, puke, and foul farts now, they're horrible places'. )

The thing is, as almost all teenagers are inately rebellious, putting a ban in place on anything seems almost always to encourage them to go against it anyway, doesn't it? But nanny state knows best. Ho hum.

Priorities People

Indy - The City and keeping the rainforests alive

'Rainforest is worth 75 times more alive than dead.'

'..more good for the cause of climate change than any amount of carbon sequestration projects, wind farms, electric cars, and so on.'

And this is tucked away here because...?

Is there a ban-wagon looming that needs front page treatment more?

Careful what you campaign for...

How I became an 'enviro-criminal'

First they came for the plastic bags, but I did not give Sir Stuart his 5p...

At least we can count on the Guardian not to leap on any ban-wagons that may lead to more fines and... oh.

Imagine if they decided travel ads were out, and car mags (like AutoTrader).

Sticking your oar in

I've cut back a lot on stuff that flies around the e-ther via other media, and am especially dubious about sharing the welter of stories that involve research or scientists, but this is worth popping up: Biofuels make climate change worse, scientific study concludes

No 'may' or 'suggests' here. We have a 'make' and a 'concludes'. So I take more notice. And, though noting it is 'just' in a UK quality national, according to The Independent this is the '...first thorough scientific audit of a biofuel's carbon budget.'

And the words used subsequently are not minced: 'damning evidence' ... 'biggest environmental con-tricks' ... 'actually make global warming worse'.

Hold that last thought. enviROI anyone? I take no pleasure in this, but here we have a very telling example of what headlong rushes into 'anything green that must be good' can possibly lead to.

It is to be hoped that we can expect this salutory lesson be applied to ensure the real e-value of all manner of other green initiatives, from wind turbines... to simply banning plastic bags with no thought for the consequences of the alternatives (or lack of).

So I would wish government, activists... and media... would all learn to give pause before the leap on the green band, and/or banwagon as they too often do.

Indy - Michael McCarthy: 'Free lunch' that could cost the earth

Gaurdian - Biofuel farms make CO2 emissions worse

Ban-er Headlines and Ban-wagons

I caught up on some lifestyle publications over the weekend.

Unsurprisingly, most had one, or more, pieces on matters green. And often, as is the way, they were focusing on individuals. Fair enough. The efforts of people are what interests us most (though the activities of rich, part-time yummie mates of yummie Islington journos are wearing a tad thin... for me at least).

However, while a few were about those who were making or doing something positive and/or proactive, the huge majority were pretty negative.

Not in terms of criticism of the person. Far from it. But almost without exception these were folk who had coordinated a protest or ban.

Now in itself this is also not always a bad thing. There are certainly things that need considering. and bringing them to broader attention can be lauded.

But in too many cases I felt the person was getting a lot more credit 'for saving the planet' than they deserved, because there was a) little or no consideration of the enviROI consequences, which too me were often potentially negative, or b) a total lack of positive alternatives put forward, at least in terms of things that seemed any 'better'.

I'd really like to see our media spend a little more time looking at the issues more broadly and deeply before jumping on a' ban-wagon', and for sure focusing much more on clearly positive issues and those involved with them.