Again, I get interested in a bit of science reporting.
Losing sustainability in the urban canyons
I was simply intrigued by the back of envelope calculations, but my enquiry did provoke an interesting response, which at least allowed me the opportunity to expand and clarify (plus indulge in a little blogger teasing:)....
Just looking at the nice picture at the top, I merely wonder what the consequences might be as the sun moves and certain areas end up in the shade of various tall structures around and abounding. At least in the original piece there was a caveat on the wind contribution, though again I have to wonder to what extent there may be problems from the wind patterns around such urban canyons. I am sure if Mr. Cameron had a penthouse overlooking Central Park we may have some better idea. So no matter what people can and then decide to do, even en masse, I'd still be keen to know what the realistic generation capacities might be, bearing in mind the ambient climatic and architectural conditions, from someone who might know. I am still hoping in matters of renewable energy deliverables, historical data and professional experience and calculations can get pretty close to a reasonable estimate. Perhaps a tad closer than the current rough calculations? This indeed may be of value to the journalists from Bulgaria, India, Kenya and Peru, and the numerous interest groups represented at the meeting, who I am sure have flown in from far and wide to appreciate all the facts about what causes climate change... and possible high enviROI mitigations, of course. Though some terribly reasonable optimistic level lampooners may still prefer to stick a finger up in the air. To measure, of course.
After this, it kind of fell apart on the moderation, which seems to be almost inevitable.
So my questions on the science get buried under stupid finger pointing. Again. Nice one, Aunty.
Showing posts with label BONMOT. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BONMOT. Show all posts
Friday, May 15, 2009
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Pols? Or Engineers?
Decide for yourself.
This interesting article from New Consumer argues that Engineers hold the keys to sustainable transport solutions, not Politicians.
What do I think? Well, our pols don't really have a great track record on sustainable transport, other than one of caning those of us stuck in rural areas without any options, whilst heavily subsidising urban transport systems. And engineering IS what originally made our once proud nation 'Great'.
"if low-carbon technology is to be successful, engineers must continue working towards providing viable solutions that are not only low-emission, but low in price."
Yes, yes and yes again. But what's the chance that our pols will follow through with anything like this when it is far easier to make billions out of schemes such as auctioning off the rights to CO2 emissions options? (see Peter's post below)
A simple answer ....... zilch!
This interesting article from New Consumer argues that Engineers hold the keys to sustainable transport solutions, not Politicians.
What do I think? Well, our pols don't really have a great track record on sustainable transport, other than one of caning those of us stuck in rural areas without any options, whilst heavily subsidising urban transport systems. And engineering IS what originally made our once proud nation 'Great'.
"if low-carbon technology is to be successful, engineers must continue working towards providing viable solutions that are not only low-emission, but low in price."
Yes, yes and yes again. But what's the chance that our pols will follow through with anything like this when it is far easier to make billions out of schemes such as auctioning off the rights to CO2 emissions options? (see Peter's post below)
A simple answer ....... zilch!
Thursday, April 24, 2008
When I were a lad .......
.... I was definitively told that 'it' was dirty and nasty, and 'it' would even make you go blind. But, according to this from PlanetOut.com, it would appear that 'it' actually has quite an impact on reducing the chances of prostrate cancer in the males of our species!
I wonder how the NHS will tackle this information? I rather suspect that NICE may well have some interesting 'prescription guidelines' to work on here. Hmmmm .... Fiesta magazine on prescription for all widowers?
I wonder how the NHS will tackle this information? I rather suspect that NICE may well have some interesting 'prescription guidelines' to work on here. Hmmmm .... Fiesta magazine on prescription for all widowers?
Saturday, March 01, 2008
Speaking of priorities
Have Your Say: Revolution in the skies... disaster for the planet
I do of course look forward to dark threats from our Dear Leader, plus an open letter to your paper from family in support, replete with dentally-enhanced 2+2 snapshot.
Or not.
Our national followship, especially the PM, rather tends to go with the 'flow of now', as opposed to actually leading with priorities, consistency or what might be right.
Mind you, our media are little better. Nick the Thinker... spot on!
I do of course look forward to dark threats from our Dear Leader, plus an open letter to your paper from family in support, replete with dentally-enhanced 2+2 snapshot.
Or not.
Our national followship, especially the PM, rather tends to go with the 'flow of now', as opposed to actually leading with priorities, consistency or what might be right.
Mind you, our media are little better. Nick the Thinker... spot on!
Monday, December 10, 2007
The wind and the willowy
Dave has beaten me to it, but as he looks at things from the ruthlessly scientific, I often come at it all, I hope in complement, more for the ad-man's view of consumer perceptions.
And words were important this morning, especially with BBC Breakfast New...er... 'press release read out'.
Of course I perked up when I heard this country was going to be independent of nasty foreigners and free of emissions in terms of energy, and all all within an awesome timeframe.
Where I did find my eyebrow cranking was in the manner of deliverables.
I can't quite recall, but I think it was broken into three. Which, for reasons of narrative, I will repeat in reverse order.
The last was something social, I think, like shredded seagulls. I'm afraid I can't really get into that. If all creatures are going to be toast anyway, I think some sacrifices need to be made and I can live with this aspect. I also have to say that the whole view thing is getting a bit silly... at least as the main objection.
The next was more significant. Lots more. Oodles more. But was breezed over rather blithely. Money. What this was going to cost.... us. It's one thing to say 'of course this will impact..', but quite another when this get divorced too much from enviROI.
Speaking of which, this brings me to the last. And it was headed 'Reliability'.
'Ah-ha!', I thought. A nettle being grasped.
Alas, no. This was reliability of supply. Significant to be sure, and I'm not clear I got any answers as to how 'could' supply translated into 'will' supply, once inconvenient facts on durations and useful levels of actual wind speed are factored in.
But, and here's the thing, no mention of what I was thinking of under reliability. Namely how these things are at doing what they do, parked into the ocean, being battered daily by wind and salt water. And this has to be important, as they might not be the best option if we are having to rebuild them a lot more often than claimed.
Which brings me to the word 'Quality'. Because this was the next piece of the morning 'sofa, so trivial' news. Seems 'we' are going back to 'quality', at least in fashion, and to encourage us to spend as much as we can on such essentials as thigh-length patent leather boots we had some 'expert' whose only contribution was a gallon of peroxide down the sink and an outfit that looked like she was on her way back from leaning on a Kings X lamp post all night.
Seems the collective wisdom of the group was that 'quality' equated to buy one massively expensive bit of tat because of the label, as opposed to a series of cheaper bits of tat with less ad-supported ones. And it was acknowledged all round that these things were only good for a few outings until the next fad comes around... but who cares.
My definition of 'quality' is slightly different, and more to do with the one I have for 'reliability'. Things that last.
Shame our national broadcaster can't seem to get on board with that, too, especially as it pumps out what it thinks are the necessary box-tickers on enviro issues at the same time as a bloated squanderfest.
Such as Declan's ongoing woeful romp with the 'low carbon' family. Today we got a few tips on green Christmas. And a sorry collection they were too. The only time I thought it did get potentially interesting was when he pointed out to the guy selling Xmas tat that encouraging the purchase of eco stuff that you didn't need to replace year on year wasn't a great economic model. The answer was less than convincing, I felt.
Nor were the comments to all this as sign-offs from our overpaid guardians of the Christmas eco-message. Declan referred to the closing of the carbon family's efforts over the year as an 'end to the punishment' . The bouffant scored e-cards as 'not as nice as the real thing'. And the blonde thought LED Xmas lights were not as 'nice and twinkly'.
And that was the message I left with. 'Yes, talk about it for sure. But we're not changing even if we have been told to tell you you should'. Nice.
Update
Gaurdian - Wind energy to power UK by 2020, (sez who?) government says
Guardian - Blow by Blow
Thank you!!!!
But then, why the heck if you - as a journalist, and one with what one might imagine a more than average desire to see such things through the greenest of hued glasses (no offence) - can see through this, am I getting fed the rosiest of 'couldfests' by the national broadcaster and others?
On their take 'we' 'could' be firing up the jacuzzi on windy alt-eng supply from a coastal array in the next few decades.
Where are the facts? I desperately want this all to be true, but other than some vague tilts to a few 'issues', I am none the wiser on actual deliverables.
Stuff such as 'costs' are alluded to, but they 'may' be vast and 'may' be ridiculously excessive. And all dumped on the consumer, too late to argue, when the Minister and the MEP are doing a post-pension fact-checking tour of the engineering contractors' lobby firm's beach villas.
And then there was 'reliability'. Not the one I am more concerned about, namely how these things stand up to the wind and salt water for the claimed lifespan, but the almost as pertinent one of how what they say they will do actually gets done by way of turning wind into usable 'leccy 24/7.
Until this piece I thought my kid's'futures were really going to be decided, by our major media at least, on the basis of a government press release. Shame so few others may see there are BIG questions that need asking before rushing to print or the screen.
And words were important this morning, especially with BBC Breakfast New...er... 'press release read out'.
Of course I perked up when I heard this country was going to be independent of nasty foreigners and free of emissions in terms of energy, and all all within an awesome timeframe.
Where I did find my eyebrow cranking was in the manner of deliverables.
I can't quite recall, but I think it was broken into three. Which, for reasons of narrative, I will repeat in reverse order.
The last was something social, I think, like shredded seagulls. I'm afraid I can't really get into that. If all creatures are going to be toast anyway, I think some sacrifices need to be made and I can live with this aspect. I also have to say that the whole view thing is getting a bit silly... at least as the main objection.
The next was more significant. Lots more. Oodles more. But was breezed over rather blithely. Money. What this was going to cost.... us. It's one thing to say 'of course this will impact..', but quite another when this get divorced too much from enviROI.
Speaking of which, this brings me to the last. And it was headed 'Reliability'.
'Ah-ha!', I thought. A nettle being grasped.
Alas, no. This was reliability of supply. Significant to be sure, and I'm not clear I got any answers as to how 'could' supply translated into 'will' supply, once inconvenient facts on durations and useful levels of actual wind speed are factored in.
But, and here's the thing, no mention of what I was thinking of under reliability. Namely how these things are at doing what they do, parked into the ocean, being battered daily by wind and salt water. And this has to be important, as they might not be the best option if we are having to rebuild them a lot more often than claimed.
Which brings me to the word 'Quality'. Because this was the next piece of the morning 'sofa, so trivial' news. Seems 'we' are going back to 'quality', at least in fashion, and to encourage us to spend as much as we can on such essentials as thigh-length patent leather boots we had some 'expert' whose only contribution was a gallon of peroxide down the sink and an outfit that looked like she was on her way back from leaning on a Kings X lamp post all night.
Seems the collective wisdom of the group was that 'quality' equated to buy one massively expensive bit of tat because of the label, as opposed to a series of cheaper bits of tat with less ad-supported ones. And it was acknowledged all round that these things were only good for a few outings until the next fad comes around... but who cares.
My definition of 'quality' is slightly different, and more to do with the one I have for 'reliability'. Things that last.
Shame our national broadcaster can't seem to get on board with that, too, especially as it pumps out what it thinks are the necessary box-tickers on enviro issues at the same time as a bloated squanderfest.
Such as Declan's ongoing woeful romp with the 'low carbon' family. Today we got a few tips on green Christmas. And a sorry collection they were too. The only time I thought it did get potentially interesting was when he pointed out to the guy selling Xmas tat that encouraging the purchase of eco stuff that you didn't need to replace year on year wasn't a great economic model. The answer was less than convincing, I felt.
Nor were the comments to all this as sign-offs from our overpaid guardians of the Christmas eco-message. Declan referred to the closing of the carbon family's efforts over the year as an 'end to the punishment' . The bouffant scored e-cards as 'not as nice as the real thing'. And the blonde thought LED Xmas lights were not as 'nice and twinkly'.
And that was the message I left with. 'Yes, talk about it for sure. But we're not changing even if we have been told to tell you you should'. Nice.
Update
Gaurdian - Wind energy to power UK by 2020, (sez who?) government says
Guardian - Blow by Blow
Thank you!!!!
But then, why the heck if you - as a journalist, and one with what one might imagine a more than average desire to see such things through the greenest of hued glasses (no offence) - can see through this, am I getting fed the rosiest of 'couldfests' by the national broadcaster and others?
On their take 'we' 'could' be firing up the jacuzzi on windy alt-eng supply from a coastal array in the next few decades.
Where are the facts? I desperately want this all to be true, but other than some vague tilts to a few 'issues', I am none the wiser on actual deliverables.
Stuff such as 'costs' are alluded to, but they 'may' be vast and 'may' be ridiculously excessive. And all dumped on the consumer, too late to argue, when the Minister and the MEP are doing a post-pension fact-checking tour of the engineering contractors' lobby firm's beach villas.
And then there was 'reliability'. Not the one I am more concerned about, namely how these things stand up to the wind and salt water for the claimed lifespan, but the almost as pertinent one of how what they say they will do actually gets done by way of turning wind into usable 'leccy 24/7.
Until this piece I thought my kid's'futures were really going to be decided, by our major media at least, on the basis of a government press release. Shame so few others may see there are BIG questions that need asking before rushing to print or the screen.
One eroding island, two opposing views
Sometimes you come across something by chance, as in the case with this article I spotted from the American Daily. As I read it my eyebrows raised ever higher; it's a vindictive and scurrilous attack on an original article from the LA Times, and on any who might dare to believe that climate change is anything to do with mankind.
At the bottom of this virulent diatribe is a reference to the original article from the LA Times.
Read both, and I'll bet your reaction is exactly like mine.
The thing is, neither the original nor the attack article reinforce the absolutely key point - the island is rapidly eroding because the autumn ice that used to protect Kivalina a couple of decades ago is no longer present, because of global warming. The Autumn storms now directly wash away the sand the coast of Kivalina is made from at will. It probably HAS been eroding for perhaps a 100 years+, but over the last 15 to 20 years it's been eroding at an ever increasing pace until it now threatens the Eskimo inhabitants with relocation.
But I guess my scientific viewpoint must be becoming obscured, because underneath, at least according to the American Daily, I'm just a simple 'globaloney scaremongerer'.
ADDENDUM - Junkk Male - Have Your Say: Environmental 'crime' - Kinda fits here
Climate change - it's all our fault. Discuss.
t'is... t'isn't T'IS! T'ISN'T! T'IS!!!!!! T'ISN'T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh, you all ready are.
Me? I'm going with probably man-worsened climate change, just to err on the safe side for my kids' sakes.
But I'm sure another conference couldn't hurt, too. Indy can organise. And BP could sponsor it. And all the shouty types from either extreme could go there and do in person what they do here.
Leaving some free to set about DOING stuff.
That said, it's tricky without first asking a few questions, especially those to which the answers remaining tantalisingly vague.
Like why the BBC and many media are running headlines about how we 'could' be running on wind-powered renewable energy if enough money is thrown around. Why 'could'? Can't we see what the actual numbers are? They must exist. Wind speeds. Durations. Conversions. Lifespan of gearboxes in exposed salt-air conditions. The ROI? The enviROI?
Having bought into the caution, I don't mind getting on board with mitigations or even reductions, but I have to be convinced first.
Yet the big argument seems still to be whether they are even necessary. So to those of the more pessimistic persuasion, I'd suggest leaving those who would stall progress by arguing %ages in glorious isolation (and for sure don't leave open goals by trying the 'there's a funded cabal of big oilers spoiling the thread' argument at the expense of coming up with a decent one to make a decent point), and focus more on making what may well need to be done a lot more convincing and/or palatable to the vast majority ducking under such absolutist 'debate' and trying to get on with their lives.
Fat chance.
Carry on smokin'.
Indy - This project is a licence to wreak environmental havoc - I append this for a few reasons. Firstly, I note that this is a leader penned by just one party to the argument. I always find this discomfiting, partly because of what it means to the quality of informed, balanced debate (can't quiet see a BP rep. having much chance with an upside, mind), but also how it erodes one's faith in the medium. Preaching to the converted my be more comfortable, but I am unsure as to its value.
That all said, it also highlights why I have such mixed feelings on Greepeace. This kind of thing they seem good at. However, the wind power flag-waver I saw on TV today was less than inspiring in his 'green at any cost' advocacy.
At the bottom of this virulent diatribe is a reference to the original article from the LA Times.
Read both, and I'll bet your reaction is exactly like mine.
The thing is, neither the original nor the attack article reinforce the absolutely key point - the island is rapidly eroding because the autumn ice that used to protect Kivalina a couple of decades ago is no longer present, because of global warming. The Autumn storms now directly wash away the sand the coast of Kivalina is made from at will. It probably HAS been eroding for perhaps a 100 years+, but over the last 15 to 20 years it's been eroding at an ever increasing pace until it now threatens the Eskimo inhabitants with relocation.
But I guess my scientific viewpoint must be becoming obscured, because underneath, at least according to the American Daily, I'm just a simple 'globaloney scaremongerer'.
ADDENDUM - Junkk Male - Have Your Say: Environmental 'crime' - Kinda fits here
Climate change - it's all our fault. Discuss.
t'is... t'isn't T'IS! T'ISN'T! T'IS!!!!!! T'ISN'T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh, you all ready are.
Me? I'm going with probably man-worsened climate change, just to err on the safe side for my kids' sakes.
But I'm sure another conference couldn't hurt, too. Indy can organise. And BP could sponsor it. And all the shouty types from either extreme could go there and do in person what they do here.
Leaving some free to set about DOING stuff.
That said, it's tricky without first asking a few questions, especially those to which the answers remaining tantalisingly vague.
Like why the BBC and many media are running headlines about how we 'could' be running on wind-powered renewable energy if enough money is thrown around. Why 'could'? Can't we see what the actual numbers are? They must exist. Wind speeds. Durations. Conversions. Lifespan of gearboxes in exposed salt-air conditions. The ROI? The enviROI?
Having bought into the caution, I don't mind getting on board with mitigations or even reductions, but I have to be convinced first.
Yet the big argument seems still to be whether they are even necessary. So to those of the more pessimistic persuasion, I'd suggest leaving those who would stall progress by arguing %ages in glorious isolation (and for sure don't leave open goals by trying the 'there's a funded cabal of big oilers spoiling the thread' argument at the expense of coming up with a decent one to make a decent point), and focus more on making what may well need to be done a lot more convincing and/or palatable to the vast majority ducking under such absolutist 'debate' and trying to get on with their lives.
Fat chance.
Carry on smokin'.
Indy - This project is a licence to wreak environmental havoc - I append this for a few reasons. Firstly, I note that this is a leader penned by just one party to the argument. I always find this discomfiting, partly because of what it means to the quality of informed, balanced debate (can't quiet see a BP rep. having much chance with an upside, mind), but also how it erodes one's faith in the medium. Preaching to the converted my be more comfortable, but I am unsure as to its value.
That all said, it also highlights why I have such mixed feelings on Greepeace. This kind of thing they seem good at. However, the wind power flag-waver I saw on TV today was less than inspiring in his 'green at any cost' advocacy.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Feed me money or I go bang!
Not really enviro in any way, but very amusing for a dank and dismal Thursday afternoon. From Reuters, reporting on a Japanese piggy bank that explodes if you don't top it up regularly!
Well, it tickled my admittedly strange sense of humour!
Well, it tickled my admittedly strange sense of humour!
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Greenism
I'm stumped. I've been it before. I will be again. And I certainly am now. And it is epitomised by this: MEP HITS OUT AT MEDIA OVER CLIMATE CHANGE DOUBT...
... from a press release which I print in full here:
LUCAS LIKENS CLIMATE SCEPTICISM TO HOLOCAUST DENIAL - GREEN MEP Caroline Lucas has hit out at the media after a poll revealed that a majority of people in the UK believe that scientists aren’t agreed about the facts of climate change – or that it is being caused by human activity. According to latest figures by pollsters Ipsos-MORI, some 56 per cent of respondents agreed with the statement: “Many leading experts still question if human activity is contributing to climate change”. Just 22 per cent disagreed. Dr Lucas, who is a member of the European Parliament’s Environment and Climate Change committees, said: “This is very worrying. Politicians will never take the steps necessary to cut emissions unless voters demand that they do so, and they won’t demand it if they remain sceptical about their role in changing the climate in the first place. “The media are, at least in part, to blame: their obsession with appearing to be balanced means discussions of climate change tend to have a naysayer arguing either that climate change isn’t happening, or that it isn’t manmade, as though there is a serious ongoing scientific debate about this. “But the fact is that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change: almost every scientist in the world agrees that climate change is happening, that it is being fuelled by human activity, and that our best chance of ameliorating its worst impacts lies in dramatically cutting global greenhouse gas emissions. “By suggesting otherwise the media is, albeit inadvertently, promoting dangerous scepticism about climate change – and undermining our chances of doing anything about it.” Dr Lucas, who was named Politician of the Year in the recent Observer Ethical Awards 2007, likened climate change scepticism to holocaust denial. “The media’s attempt to seem balanced is in fact distorting the public’s understanding of perhaps the most pressing issue facing us all today – and it’s tragic. It doesn’t make any sense: would the media insist on having a holocaust-denier to balance any report about the second word war? Of course not - but by insisting on giving so much airtime to climate change deniers, it is doing exactly the same thing.”
This is yet another, oddly familiar salvo, that can be added to the exchanges noted of late, including some we've had most latterly on these very pages just yesterday.
Here I am, trying to do my best to do what's best for my kids' futures on this planet, and I seem to have found myself in the BOFDi camp.
Let me be clear. I think the evidence for climate change (Global warming is getting pretty discredited as a term , at least to use in public debate, as low temperatures and flash floods are hard to reconcile with the term) is pretty clear. I also believe that, at best, what mankind is doing sure isn't helping. So anything we do... now... in mitigation to slow, halt and reverse the process is a priority, especially as, to this 'live for tomorrow' society, we are talking efforts that equate to turning a supertanker, inasmuch as what we do today won't get noticed - good or bad - for several decades.
But...
I simply cannot go along with the notion that 'green is always good', and in the name of climate change action all manner of statements and/or initiatives can be allowed to go undebated as to validity and value. I guess it is one of the greater failings of the democratic process, especially when time is of the essence.
But while I have great respect for Dr. Lucas, when I see such as this '...their obsession with appearing to be balanced means discussions of climate change tend to have a naysayer arguing either that climate change isn’t happening...' I have to fall on the side of a much maligned (usually by me) media.
What is she saying? That 'we' shouldn't try to be balanced? There is an inherent arrogance here, that the majority are not to fit to make up their own minds up, and need to have only what is fit to shape them spoonfed by independent sources, such (well, within certain boundaries of credibility) as the media.
If the naysayers are holding sway, why are the majority of people accepting their stances? This is what needs to be addressed, and in ways civilised society is used to and must expect: debate and persuasion.
I simply can't accept you 'rig' it to suit your point of view prevailing, not matter how urgent the need to get moving.
And let's not forget, as noted also on these pages, climate change is also being used as a very convenient tool to excuse, distract from or otherwise promote activities that do still bear scrutiny, along with the agendas of those making the most noise, and with the most to profit from ROI over enviROI, especially if... when... they become the Gods of Green, whose word is taken as gospel with no naysaying permitted.
I'd hate to get to a situation similar to the one often found, for instance with Africa, where legitimate concerns on activities conducted and claims made can be easily deflected by accusations of 'racism'.
Please not let's have 'greenism' being bandied about in the same way.
... from a press release which I print in full here:
LUCAS LIKENS CLIMATE SCEPTICISM TO HOLOCAUST DENIAL - GREEN MEP Caroline Lucas has hit out at the media after a poll revealed that a majority of people in the UK believe that scientists aren’t agreed about the facts of climate change – or that it is being caused by human activity. According to latest figures by pollsters Ipsos-MORI, some 56 per cent of respondents agreed with the statement: “Many leading experts still question if human activity is contributing to climate change”. Just 22 per cent disagreed. Dr Lucas, who is a member of the European Parliament’s Environment and Climate Change committees, said: “This is very worrying. Politicians will never take the steps necessary to cut emissions unless voters demand that they do so, and they won’t demand it if they remain sceptical about their role in changing the climate in the first place. “The media are, at least in part, to blame: their obsession with appearing to be balanced means discussions of climate change tend to have a naysayer arguing either that climate change isn’t happening, or that it isn’t manmade, as though there is a serious ongoing scientific debate about this. “But the fact is that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change: almost every scientist in the world agrees that climate change is happening, that it is being fuelled by human activity, and that our best chance of ameliorating its worst impacts lies in dramatically cutting global greenhouse gas emissions. “By suggesting otherwise the media is, albeit inadvertently, promoting dangerous scepticism about climate change – and undermining our chances of doing anything about it.” Dr Lucas, who was named Politician of the Year in the recent Observer Ethical Awards 2007, likened climate change scepticism to holocaust denial. “The media’s attempt to seem balanced is in fact distorting the public’s understanding of perhaps the most pressing issue facing us all today – and it’s tragic. It doesn’t make any sense: would the media insist on having a holocaust-denier to balance any report about the second word war? Of course not - but by insisting on giving so much airtime to climate change deniers, it is doing exactly the same thing.”
This is yet another, oddly familiar salvo, that can be added to the exchanges noted of late, including some we've had most latterly on these very pages just yesterday.
Here I am, trying to do my best to do what's best for my kids' futures on this planet, and I seem to have found myself in the BOFDi camp.
Let me be clear. I think the evidence for climate change (Global warming is getting pretty discredited as a term , at least to use in public debate, as low temperatures and flash floods are hard to reconcile with the term) is pretty clear. I also believe that, at best, what mankind is doing sure isn't helping. So anything we do... now... in mitigation to slow, halt and reverse the process is a priority, especially as, to this 'live for tomorrow' society, we are talking efforts that equate to turning a supertanker, inasmuch as what we do today won't get noticed - good or bad - for several decades.
But...
I simply cannot go along with the notion that 'green is always good', and in the name of climate change action all manner of statements and/or initiatives can be allowed to go undebated as to validity and value. I guess it is one of the greater failings of the democratic process, especially when time is of the essence.
But while I have great respect for Dr. Lucas, when I see such as this '...their obsession with appearing to be balanced means discussions of climate change tend to have a naysayer arguing either that climate change isn’t happening...' I have to fall on the side of a much maligned (usually by me) media.
What is she saying? That 'we' shouldn't try to be balanced? There is an inherent arrogance here, that the majority are not to fit to make up their own minds up, and need to have only what is fit to shape them spoonfed by independent sources, such (well, within certain boundaries of credibility) as the media.
If the naysayers are holding sway, why are the majority of people accepting their stances? This is what needs to be addressed, and in ways civilised society is used to and must expect: debate and persuasion.
I simply can't accept you 'rig' it to suit your point of view prevailing, not matter how urgent the need to get moving.
And let's not forget, as noted also on these pages, climate change is also being used as a very convenient tool to excuse, distract from or otherwise promote activities that do still bear scrutiny, along with the agendas of those making the most noise, and with the most to profit from ROI over enviROI, especially if... when... they become the Gods of Green, whose word is taken as gospel with no naysaying permitted.
I'd hate to get to a situation similar to the one often found, for instance with Africa, where legitimate concerns on activities conducted and claims made can be easily deflected by accusations of 'racism'.
Please not let's have 'greenism' being bandied about in the same way.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Something for another time
I was idly watching (is there any other way?) BBC Breakfast 'News' this morning, when an innocuous little piece came on about some Eastern European state whose capital has become a City of Culture.
So far, so what. But my ears pricked up when it was introduced in the voiceover by mentioning the fact that such places had been 'opened up' as weekend short-hauls by the explosion in budget airlines. 'Interesting,' I thought, 'I wonder where this is going?'.
Well, for the majority of the next 5 minutes it went there with a full crew to have a very good time, seemingly without irony.
Then we were back at the studio, with one of the BBC's 'experts' (folk who are a) a mate, b) next door and c) On a Sunday prepared to get up at a silly hour. So I have no idea who she was) to discuss it all.
And then, near the end, we had the eco-tilt.
'I suppose we should acknowledge the environmental aspect of all this', she said.
Well, that would be a plan, considering all that has preceded it, both in the BBC's corporate contribution simply by making the piece, but also the consequences of 'selling' the notion so well.
I don't pretend it's an easy one, but I found the jocular bouffant-du-jour anchor chain's final comment so very telling 'Well, yes. But that is something for another time.'
Er, when? And if not by you, who? And why?
So far, so what. But my ears pricked up when it was introduced in the voiceover by mentioning the fact that such places had been 'opened up' as weekend short-hauls by the explosion in budget airlines. 'Interesting,' I thought, 'I wonder where this is going?'.
Well, for the majority of the next 5 minutes it went there with a full crew to have a very good time, seemingly without irony.
Then we were back at the studio, with one of the BBC's 'experts' (folk who are a) a mate, b) next door and c) On a Sunday prepared to get up at a silly hour. So I have no idea who she was) to discuss it all.
And then, near the end, we had the eco-tilt.
'I suppose we should acknowledge the environmental aspect of all this', she said.
Well, that would be a plan, considering all that has preceded it, both in the BBC's corporate contribution simply by making the piece, but also the consequences of 'selling' the notion so well.
I don't pretend it's an easy one, but I found the jocular bouffant-du-jour anchor chain's final comment so very telling 'Well, yes. But that is something for another time.'
Er, when? And if not by you, who? And why?
Monday, May 07, 2007
Studying to death?
I quick Grinch-risking missive to the Beeb:
Dear Sirs,
Re: Antarctic Global Warming Prizes
While the theory behind this initiative, and the ideas it inspired are to be applauded, I have to wonder at the prizes.
Our polar wastelands seem to be getting pretty crowded these days with people traveling there (often with film crews in tow) to 'study the effects', one presumes with certain irony, of people traveling there.
And did I hear right that the runner up prizes were for... travel?
http://www.iceedge.co.uk/
Just watched some winners (with a few non-winners sounding typically much more interesting actual solutions as opposed to TV-friendly gimmicks).
Further to my Grinch views, I thought the comments were telling: 'Well, it is a dilemma flying up there, but at least getting to see it before it goes will be amazing'.
Hmn, indeed. Maybe we should all go up and catch it before it has gone then?
Then I read this:
Binge-flying culture is just beginning. The only way to stop it is a severe tax
As an environmentally-concerned individual, I face the dilemma of being married to a Singaporean with all the family-related annual travel consequences that creates (no flights for several years now, but wife and kids do deserve to see their folks soon). Sadly, time and money preclude the options of other alternatives, unless I can get sponsored on a slow travel blog by some green-minded newspaper. However, unless you are a mate of the editor that may be a dodgy sell, as people may tire of 'I'm spending a year having a hoot doing no work... and getting paid for it' efforts by now.
It does rather seem the travel issue is getting more and more polarised, if you'll forgive the pun... bearing in mind what follows.
Today I watched BBC Breakfast News with what seemed like an excellent initiative to encourage kids to come up with some ideas (a few which that were perhaps less televisual not getting the credit they deserved, IMHO. Chewing gum will sort climate change?) to tackle global warming.
The prize? A trip to see the polar regions before they disappear because, one presumes, of people going to see them before they disappear.
And the runner up prizes were... travel!
There is quite an interesting industry being created in saving, and promoting the saving of this planet.
Shame it seems there is little actual desire or effort to actually get around to actually doing it in favour of hype, spin and a quick slot on the TV.
Dear Sirs,
Re: Antarctic Global Warming Prizes
While the theory behind this initiative, and the ideas it inspired are to be applauded, I have to wonder at the prizes.
Our polar wastelands seem to be getting pretty crowded these days with people traveling there (often with film crews in tow) to 'study the effects', one presumes with certain irony, of people traveling there.
And did I hear right that the runner up prizes were for... travel?
http://www.iceedge.co.uk/
Just watched some winners (with a few non-winners sounding typically much more interesting actual solutions as opposed to TV-friendly gimmicks).
Further to my Grinch views, I thought the comments were telling: 'Well, it is a dilemma flying up there, but at least getting to see it before it goes will be amazing'.
Hmn, indeed. Maybe we should all go up and catch it before it has gone then?
Then I read this:
Binge-flying culture is just beginning. The only way to stop it is a severe tax
As an environmentally-concerned individual, I face the dilemma of being married to a Singaporean with all the family-related annual travel consequences that creates (no flights for several years now, but wife and kids do deserve to see their folks soon). Sadly, time and money preclude the options of other alternatives, unless I can get sponsored on a slow travel blog by some green-minded newspaper. However, unless you are a mate of the editor that may be a dodgy sell, as people may tire of 'I'm spending a year having a hoot doing no work... and getting paid for it' efforts by now.
It does rather seem the travel issue is getting more and more polarised, if you'll forgive the pun... bearing in mind what follows.
Today I watched BBC Breakfast News with what seemed like an excellent initiative to encourage kids to come up with some ideas (a few which that were perhaps less televisual not getting the credit they deserved, IMHO. Chewing gum will sort climate change?) to tackle global warming.
The prize? A trip to see the polar regions before they disappear because, one presumes, of people going to see them before they disappear.
And the runner up prizes were... travel!
There is quite an interesting industry being created in saving, and promoting the saving of this planet.
Shame it seems there is little actual desire or effort to actually get around to actually doing it in favour of hype, spin and a quick slot on the TV.
Friday, April 27, 2007
The Good, the Bad and the... can't be bothered
You can see a few more here.There's money in talking about the environment, obviously.
And I now, in addition to Junkk.com have something well worth talking about, not least because it actually is a physical thing that does something, and does it less.
Yet still I face an uphill struggle to share it.
This piece in the Indy allowed me a slight venting opportunity:
Terence Blacker: Why I'm not sold on 'The Apprentice'
Dear Mr. Blacker,
'Selfishness, a lack of personal accountability, a ruthless aggression towards others are, in everyday life, regarded as social problems. How odd it is that [any successful medium] suggests that they are so desirable in business [and engages in such practices itself].' My brackets.
Couldn't agree with you more.
Having been involved in a positive campaign for a years to change consumers' attitudes towards packaging, and recently winning a Gold international award for an invention to help them to improve matters, I still await any acknowledgement, recognition or support from the paper you write for.
I will put anything and anyone on my site if it helps improve the environment, even if they are technically competitive. A shame that other enterprises are not so able to share in the bigger picture, when self-interest, opportunism, ego and greed take over. Good luck to the Indy and the Daily Mail as the latest self-appointed guardians of our eco-future as they slug it out to gain the high profit green ground. Sir Alan would be proud.
However, to end on a more positive note, there are glimmers of gold glinting in the morass.
Having waded through a lot of government 'stuff', I ended up with some guys at the Centre for Remanufacturing and Reuse. They may or may not be able to help, but by golly got back nice and quick with a compliment and some nifty areas that look promising.
With so much deadweights around it's hard not to get weighed down, but it's the few positives like these that keep you going.
We may even make it yet.
STOP PRESS - Relief! The UKTI/BizLink are keen to help and coming round next week. Phew!
Indy - No time to waste - no s**t, really?
STOP PRESS #2 - Mr. Blacker has replied and, despite my venting if not at him at least his employers, kindly, which makes me blush (though the tone does make me wonder if it is not more than a little 'form' in nature. Better than telling me to p*ss off, though!):
Many thanks for your kind email - and the best of luck with your campaign.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Good question. But is it the most important?
Is Arnie really green?
To the one you pose, personally my answer would have to be 'no', not 'really'. But matters of green are pretty broad in scope, and can seldom be viewed in just black and white.
As you point out, at least he is doing something, which in comparison to others is a heck of a lot better than nothing. Or is it?
Because we have the message, and then we have the messenger. As Janet Street Porter pointed out a few days ago, few can be unaware of global warming by now, so do we really need more awareness from celebrity politicians, green-tinged celebrities and the remoras of the media that follow, share and bask in their gre-e-lite (pronounced 'leet) movements and issue forth their pronouncements of what should be done, if not by them, as such? Maybe a bit more back-room deal-making with the power-brokers would help a tad more?
There is also the small matter of gesture politics not actually serving the one thing that matters, which is enviroROI - simply, will what gets done save more carbon emissions than they cause? Financial ROI is another consideration of course, and one for those rich enough to indulge in if they can and wish to. Frankly if you can afford to go green and it does good, then I say go for it.
However, lobbing up to 'sell' such an effort in a hydrogen powered Humvee (or aspiring to a similarly-configured BMW as is apparently the case with Stuart Rose of M&S) to me helps not one jot. For a start, much as I appreciate the potential of hydrogen, its production and distribution currently means that such a vehicle may make the owner look green, but certainly is not helping Mother Earth. And... a Humvee? Why not just get Chris Eubank on the horn and convert his truck? The first message we get is that it is better (only better, mind, as creation and use does still extract an e-cost) than fossil fuels, hence we must therefore use the biggest, most fuel-inefficient-for-purpose lump of tin to consume it?
I agree with him on one point. Making things about guilt, fine or fear have not, and will not work. We need incentive-based initiatives with which the consumer will willingly engage through a perception (hopefully genuinely delivered) of end-benefit an/or reward. And a little bit of leadership by example wouldn't go amiss to get that across.
Sadly, by talking down to us from a Green Tower (I'm still trying to rationalise "[not] powering my private airplanes (plural!),” with “It's too bad for us that we can't live the lives of Buddhist monks (I guess they just go skiing on RyanAir)") I fear such as Arnie et Al (make sure y'all come to see me and my best bud Madge at Live Earth!) may not be the ideal choices to motivate the masses.
Governator aims to make green issues 'sexy'
Yes, he is 'on the cover of Newsweek as one of the big environmentalists'. Maybe that is more for that publication, and other media who publish eco-hype without thinking, to answer. And not only in America.
To the one you pose, personally my answer would have to be 'no', not 'really'. But matters of green are pretty broad in scope, and can seldom be viewed in just black and white.
As you point out, at least he is doing something, which in comparison to others is a heck of a lot better than nothing. Or is it?
Because we have the message, and then we have the messenger. As Janet Street Porter pointed out a few days ago, few can be unaware of global warming by now, so do we really need more awareness from celebrity politicians, green-tinged celebrities and the remoras of the media that follow, share and bask in their gre-e-lite (pronounced 'leet) movements and issue forth their pronouncements of what should be done, if not by them, as such? Maybe a bit more back-room deal-making with the power-brokers would help a tad more?
There is also the small matter of gesture politics not actually serving the one thing that matters, which is enviroROI - simply, will what gets done save more carbon emissions than they cause? Financial ROI is another consideration of course, and one for those rich enough to indulge in if they can and wish to. Frankly if you can afford to go green and it does good, then I say go for it.
However, lobbing up to 'sell' such an effort in a hydrogen powered Humvee (or aspiring to a similarly-configured BMW as is apparently the case with Stuart Rose of M&S) to me helps not one jot. For a start, much as I appreciate the potential of hydrogen, its production and distribution currently means that such a vehicle may make the owner look green, but certainly is not helping Mother Earth. And... a Humvee? Why not just get Chris Eubank on the horn and convert his truck? The first message we get is that it is better (only better, mind, as creation and use does still extract an e-cost) than fossil fuels, hence we must therefore use the biggest, most fuel-inefficient-for-purpose lump of tin to consume it?
I agree with him on one point. Making things about guilt, fine or fear have not, and will not work. We need incentive-based initiatives with which the consumer will willingly engage through a perception (hopefully genuinely delivered) of end-benefit an/or reward. And a little bit of leadership by example wouldn't go amiss to get that across.
Sadly, by talking down to us from a Green Tower (I'm still trying to rationalise "[not] powering my private airplanes (plural!),” with “It's too bad for us that we can't live the lives of Buddhist monks (I guess they just go skiing on RyanAir)") I fear such as Arnie et Al (make sure y'all come to see me and my best bud Madge at Live Earth!) may not be the ideal choices to motivate the masses.
Governator aims to make green issues 'sexy'
Yes, he is 'on the cover of Newsweek as one of the big environmentalists'. Maybe that is more for that publication, and other media who publish eco-hype without thinking, to answer. And not only in America.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
So that's how they decide what's news
Establishing a rapport
Will any of these soirees be held outside London?
Then you could add one more to the two (so far) visiting here (at least in print. You can add you and your Mum as 'clickers-on') online, and the fifty you met in person t'other night.
It would be a shame to find the thoughts of our nation's journalists are shaped, even if ever so slightly, by such a limited sample of the blogosphere, much less the population.
ADDENDUM - my comment provoked a retort from one of the 'in' crowd, it seems.
I must brush up on my Vogon poetry
Oo-er. As this was a post on the craft of blogging, despite being invited to comment, and assuming this thread by being in the public domain is not... yet... 'club' members only, I must pen... key this carefully. It is all too often that a stray word in print without the benefit of tone can be... unkindly taken and not as intended, so going flaming downhill. Hence my being frustrated at an inability to share live and in person with '50 "consumers" asking questions and voicing their own opinions about what all we Telegraph bloggers collectively produce'. I do trust the author, upon his return, will appreciate I was simply trying to be kind enough to visit and, better yet, offer some feedback, if purely personal and possibly subjective.
I'd like to think I do try to be scrupulously fair, but how what I write gets taken can often be out of my hands. However looking back I do believe that I simply asked a question (which remains unanswered) and made a mild observation. In fact this all may be moot depending on the answer, which I was indeed trying to to offer an opinion upon, and it may be that a regional roadshow is envisaged. That it started in London is of course more than logical in the circumstances.
It is tremendous that many who attended did so from outside our fair capital and, indeed, country. Lucky also, and very committed, that they had the resources of time and money (return fares, overnight accommodation) to do so.
It could justifiably be argued that if one cares enough to share in such things one needs to make the effort. However, as the subject of what's fair has been raised, Douglas Adams did create a neat opening to the Hitchhikers Guide on this very point. Sorry, but I still have this odd notion that journalism is as much about going out and finding a story as having it handed to one. This is a nice initiative, certainly better than nothing, and plays well to the 'we're listening' audience, but if it stays 'centric' it can also offer opportunity to those with the wherewithal to make the most such an arrangement. Activists & lobbyists spring to mind. Now, where would they mostly be based or have easy access to? Is it too much to presume that the blogospshere, which already seems to have its more 'respected', 'influential' and even 'distinguished' representatives to court, is not a rich seam to exploit? More so for its image of independence and freedom from being part of the media 'in-crowd' that inhabits, inevitably, a certain capital city a long way from where I happen to live and work, if online (which is why I surf and blog a lot, see:)
I have lost count of the number of journalistic pieces lately that, IMHO, have poorly reflected the rest of the country, especially in the blog, commentary or viewpoint sections. How many were there surrounding the road pricing scheme wondering what all the fuss was about, as the bike ride from the Thameside des res, or bus/tube/taxi trip from the Islington pied a terre really renders even a Prius unnecessary?
Equally, I have almost lost count of the number of special 'invitations' from the public and private sector I have had in my area of interest (the environment, in case you hadn't guessed) to take part in some get-together where 'my views are valued and will shape policy for years to come', but come with a price tag in time and money that I simply cannot afford. Usually, these are located in London.
So I am afraid that, even though bias was not a word I used as it has yet to ne proven to apply, it is always possible that if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and is held in Ducktown, there may be a slight danger that the potential GI from local Mallards may influence, ever so slightly, the possible GO produced by those working for the Daily Duck.
If I may end by repeating my question (I do gather at least one poster is an organiser, which makes out of three others so far two with questions, and one contented attendee): to have the opportunity of ensuring that a relatively (noting that nothing will ever be truly representative as me getting off my derriere and making a 30-50 mile trip is an unlikely commitment by most of the public at large, even the Telegraph-reading variety) well-rounded selection of contacts are made and views garnered from the four corners of the country this national paper serves, are there any plans to host future such events elsewhere?
No problem if not. I will simply view what I get presented bearing in mind where and from whom it is generated.
Pleased to meet you
Is this a private conversation?
A few blogs over, one of your colleagues has quipped 'As print reporters, we always joke that the only people who read our bylines are ourselves and our mums'. It seems there may be, Yoda-style, 'another'.
It may help if the rest of us were let in on who the heck you are talking about as you muse out loud.
Will any of these soirees be held outside London?
Then you could add one more to the two (so far) visiting here (at least in print. You can add you and your Mum as 'clickers-on') online, and the fifty you met in person t'other night.
It would be a shame to find the thoughts of our nation's journalists are shaped, even if ever so slightly, by such a limited sample of the blogosphere, much less the population.
ADDENDUM - my comment provoked a retort from one of the 'in' crowd, it seems.
I must brush up on my Vogon poetry
Oo-er. As this was a post on the craft of blogging, despite being invited to comment, and assuming this thread by being in the public domain is not... yet... 'club' members only, I must pen... key this carefully. It is all too often that a stray word in print without the benefit of tone can be... unkindly taken and not as intended, so going flaming downhill. Hence my being frustrated at an inability to share live and in person with '50 "consumers" asking questions and voicing their own opinions about what all we Telegraph bloggers collectively produce'. I do trust the author, upon his return, will appreciate I was simply trying to be kind enough to visit and, better yet, offer some feedback, if purely personal and possibly subjective.
I'd like to think I do try to be scrupulously fair, but how what I write gets taken can often be out of my hands. However looking back I do believe that I simply asked a question (which remains unanswered) and made a mild observation. In fact this all may be moot depending on the answer, which I was indeed trying to to offer an opinion upon, and it may be that a regional roadshow is envisaged. That it started in London is of course more than logical in the circumstances.
It is tremendous that many who attended did so from outside our fair capital and, indeed, country. Lucky also, and very committed, that they had the resources of time and money (return fares, overnight accommodation) to do so.
It could justifiably be argued that if one cares enough to share in such things one needs to make the effort. However, as the subject of what's fair has been raised, Douglas Adams did create a neat opening to the Hitchhikers Guide on this very point. Sorry, but I still have this odd notion that journalism is as much about going out and finding a story as having it handed to one. This is a nice initiative, certainly better than nothing, and plays well to the 'we're listening' audience, but if it stays 'centric' it can also offer opportunity to those with the wherewithal to make the most such an arrangement. Activists & lobbyists spring to mind. Now, where would they mostly be based or have easy access to? Is it too much to presume that the blogospshere, which already seems to have its more 'respected', 'influential' and even 'distinguished' representatives to court, is not a rich seam to exploit? More so for its image of independence and freedom from being part of the media 'in-crowd' that inhabits, inevitably, a certain capital city a long way from where I happen to live and work, if online (which is why I surf and blog a lot, see:)
I have lost count of the number of journalistic pieces lately that, IMHO, have poorly reflected the rest of the country, especially in the blog, commentary or viewpoint sections. How many were there surrounding the road pricing scheme wondering what all the fuss was about, as the bike ride from the Thameside des res, or bus/tube/taxi trip from the Islington pied a terre really renders even a Prius unnecessary?
Equally, I have almost lost count of the number of special 'invitations' from the public and private sector I have had in my area of interest (the environment, in case you hadn't guessed) to take part in some get-together where 'my views are valued and will shape policy for years to come', but come with a price tag in time and money that I simply cannot afford. Usually, these are located in London.
So I am afraid that, even though bias was not a word I used as it has yet to ne proven to apply, it is always possible that if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and is held in Ducktown, there may be a slight danger that the potential GI from local Mallards may influence, ever so slightly, the possible GO produced by those working for the Daily Duck.
If I may end by repeating my question (I do gather at least one poster is an organiser, which makes out of three others so far two with questions, and one contented attendee): to have the opportunity of ensuring that a relatively (noting that nothing will ever be truly representative as me getting off my derriere and making a 30-50 mile trip is an unlikely commitment by most of the public at large, even the Telegraph-reading variety) well-rounded selection of contacts are made and views garnered from the four corners of the country this national paper serves, are there any plans to host future such events elsewhere?
No problem if not. I will simply view what I get presented bearing in mind where and from whom it is generated.
Pleased to meet you
Is this a private conversation?
A few blogs over, one of your colleagues has quipped 'As print reporters, we always joke that the only people who read our bylines are ourselves and our mums'. It seems there may be, Yoda-style, 'another'.
It may help if the rest of us were let in on who the heck you are talking about as you muse out loud.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
The 64,000 hour question
Ethical Issues - Your questions
They asked. I wonder how well they'll listen:
A challenging year perhaps, but one trusts a rewarding one.
We have shared your ups and downs and, along with info from the programme, some very useful tips and links on this very site, which will hopefully point us in better enviro-directions.
I'm afraid I missed the peeing on the compost and, mercifully, the hippy poo (more roughage, doubtless), but do have some concerns on where this leads if embraced by all (surely what is being advocated, though there seem to be some who aspire to a career in being greener in comparison to others, and would thus surely require such divisions of lifestyle to remain to stay in paid voyeuristic spotlight) following a line of thought I embarked upon when I saw another programme advocating home composting toilets by another eco-guru. What would the social hygiene consequences be if 10 million folk in London got inspired to follow suit?
As to doing without the family car... well, that's more the one owned by your family to be strictly accurate, is it not? I do recall some tons of manufactured metal being used to consume some hydrocarbons subsequently, when push came and shove was not really an option.
Work, career and family, eh? So we now end your mission with the arrival of the lovey Elsa, who you say blew it all with the first breath she took.
Speaking of which, and knowing what you know now, for her sake (or, more likely her kids' kids sakes), it is to be hoped that being ethical doesn't stop just because the producer's deadline has expired and the show needs to move on to feed on newer ratings fare. That would send a rather unfortunate message out about the triviality of our media, and the disposability of ethics, along with our more tangible consumerist waste products. Not to mention, as those darn IPCC science bods (et Al, as in... well, you've met him) keep harping on, going 'back' in any way shape or form looks like it's going to bring the possible tipping point ever nearer. How many journalists did it take to cover that, sans irony? Now, there was one in Brussels. Another in Mexico and, my personal favourite, the one who'd flown specially to the Arctic wasteland to show us what all that flying was doing. So make sure on your next holiday to Marbella you say you're studying climate change and you'll be golden.
There are so many detailed questions to ask, and I see them building up already, but I will concern myself with just one. But it is a biggie:
Qu: - Assuming it is agreed by them all (in words, if not actions) that man-made carbon emissions need to be reduced, which political party is prepared to commit itself ONLY to the cause of genuine, clear and simple positive enviROI solutions (no greenwash to buy a vote, spin a headline or buy off a lobbyist - simply something that saves a lot more carbon than it costs to make and run), explained honestly in terms the public can understand, sold for the betterment of our kids' long-term futures and not short-term political gain, any eco-activist corporate agenda, commercial career/bottom line benefit or media ratings-driven kneejerk?
I'm holding my breath. Looking at who would lead us into the future currently, ethically or not, I fear I may yet need all I can save.
They asked. I wonder how well they'll listen:
A challenging year perhaps, but one trusts a rewarding one.
We have shared your ups and downs and, along with info from the programme, some very useful tips and links on this very site, which will hopefully point us in better enviro-directions.
I'm afraid I missed the peeing on the compost and, mercifully, the hippy poo (more roughage, doubtless), but do have some concerns on where this leads if embraced by all (surely what is being advocated, though there seem to be some who aspire to a career in being greener in comparison to others, and would thus surely require such divisions of lifestyle to remain to stay in paid voyeuristic spotlight) following a line of thought I embarked upon when I saw another programme advocating home composting toilets by another eco-guru. What would the social hygiene consequences be if 10 million folk in London got inspired to follow suit?
As to doing without the family car... well, that's more the one owned by your family to be strictly accurate, is it not? I do recall some tons of manufactured metal being used to consume some hydrocarbons subsequently, when push came and shove was not really an option.
Work, career and family, eh? So we now end your mission with the arrival of the lovey Elsa, who you say blew it all with the first breath she took.
Speaking of which, and knowing what you know now, for her sake (or, more likely her kids' kids sakes), it is to be hoped that being ethical doesn't stop just because the producer's deadline has expired and the show needs to move on to feed on newer ratings fare. That would send a rather unfortunate message out about the triviality of our media, and the disposability of ethics, along with our more tangible consumerist waste products. Not to mention, as those darn IPCC science bods (et Al, as in... well, you've met him) keep harping on, going 'back' in any way shape or form looks like it's going to bring the possible tipping point ever nearer. How many journalists did it take to cover that, sans irony? Now, there was one in Brussels. Another in Mexico and, my personal favourite, the one who'd flown specially to the Arctic wasteland to show us what all that flying was doing. So make sure on your next holiday to Marbella you say you're studying climate change and you'll be golden.
There are so many detailed questions to ask, and I see them building up already, but I will concern myself with just one. But it is a biggie:
Qu: - Assuming it is agreed by them all (in words, if not actions) that man-made carbon emissions need to be reduced, which political party is prepared to commit itself ONLY to the cause of genuine, clear and simple positive enviROI solutions (no greenwash to buy a vote, spin a headline or buy off a lobbyist - simply something that saves a lot more carbon than it costs to make and run), explained honestly in terms the public can understand, sold for the betterment of our kids' long-term futures and not short-term political gain, any eco-activist corporate agenda, commercial career/bottom line benefit or media ratings-driven kneejerk?
I'm holding my breath. Looking at who would lead us into the future currently, ethically or not, I fear I may yet need all I can save.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
I blog, therefore I am... in need of being nannied
One more from the Ministry of Pointless Protocols (MOPP), hot on the heels of telling folk that a paedophile (presumably one that is too chicken to cross the road, get on the bus or drive a car) is 'somewhere' in the vicinity to 'reassure' parents:
Weblogs 'need content warnings'
Howls of protest as web gurus attempt to banish bad behaviour from blogosphere
Me, I prefer good manners, common sense and courtesy. Sadly there are those who do not operate this way, never have and never will, and no hyped-up job-creation nonsense by society-parasitic jobsworths and complicit ratings media will make a damn bit of difference to that. Ever.
Telegraph - Pilot scheme will allow parents to find out if paedophiles live nearby
Guardian - Civil engineering
Phew! I thought the bloggers of the world had rather cleverly united under the banner 'the only thing worse (to a medium) than being abused is being ignored'.
But now the damn, and blast, has broken, I can pop in my t'pennyworth at last.
IMHO... why not? It keeps those with nothing better to do amused, gives the hacks something to froth about, and allows a few pond-dwellers to vent on something new.
As to actually making any difference, they'll be suggesting letting folk know that paedophiles (presumably non-mobile ones) 'are in the vicinity' is a good way to reassure the community.
Bless. If the news got any slower, we'd need the Tardis to read it.
Weblogs 'need content warnings'
Howls of protest as web gurus attempt to banish bad behaviour from blogosphere
Me, I prefer good manners, common sense and courtesy. Sadly there are those who do not operate this way, never have and never will, and no hyped-up job-creation nonsense by society-parasitic jobsworths and complicit ratings media will make a damn bit of difference to that. Ever.
Telegraph - Pilot scheme will allow parents to find out if paedophiles live nearby
Guardian - Civil engineering
Phew! I thought the bloggers of the world had rather cleverly united under the banner 'the only thing worse (to a medium) than being abused is being ignored'.
But now the damn, and blast, has broken, I can pop in my t'pennyworth at last.
IMHO... why not? It keeps those with nothing better to do amused, gives the hacks something to froth about, and allows a few pond-dwellers to vent on something new.
As to actually making any difference, they'll be suggesting letting folk know that paedophiles (presumably non-mobile ones) 'are in the vicinity' is a good way to reassure the community.
Bless. If the news got any slower, we'd need the Tardis to read it.
Isn't it Ironic?
Or was that Alanis Morrisette who wrote that? No matter. I still think it is pretty ironic.
Sheryl Crow starts global warming tour
Now I'm the first to applaud mitigating the effects of going about one's business, but when we stray into going the extra mile to boost awareness of the damage of going the extra mile then, well, that is just... typical. And a tad barking.
BBC - Madonna heads UK Live Earth bill - about which we will doubtless hear more... a lot more
Sheryl Crow starts global warming tour
Now I'm the first to applaud mitigating the effects of going about one's business, but when we stray into going the extra mile to boost awareness of the damage of going the extra mile then, well, that is just... typical. And a tad barking.
BBC - Madonna heads UK Live Earth bill - about which we will doubtless hear more... a lot more
Monday, April 09, 2007
Battles. Wars. Who spins... wins.
This Government fights on the media front
This is outrageous!
What the government must do is immediately commission and run a multi-million £ communications campaign to tell us what is good for them... er... us... with our money, of course.
Bishop praises Iran's 'good deeds'
If you have nothing useful to say, don't say anything.
Maybe the Bishop is hoping to sell his story?
Is there a single member of our Establishment not intent in making things a million times worse through perceived short-term self-interest?
The Iranians must be p*ssin' themselves laughing at this farce being played out by our military, the government, the media and now, even, the clergy.
Who pays these fools' salaries? Oh, I guess we do. Surprise.
Guardian - Loot is the foe of truth
One phrase is rapidly rising to the top as a catch-all, get-out-of-anything card, be it a C-list celeb trying to reinvigorate a stalled career on the back of a 'good cause', a mobile phone recycling sc...heme turning a nifty profit on green guilt or, now, a squaddie looking down the barrel of a nice little earner for being in the wrong place at the right time:
"A percentage is going to charity"
At least some of them have had the decency to figure out how fate played out, how lucky they were (as others were not), how capricious the media embrace can and will be, and made the best of it all. To them, good luck and god speed.
BBC - UK captive 'felt like a traitor'
This is outrageous!
What the government must do is immediately commission and run a multi-million £ communications campaign to tell us what is good for them... er... us... with our money, of course.
Bishop praises Iran's 'good deeds'
If you have nothing useful to say, don't say anything.
Maybe the Bishop is hoping to sell his story?
Is there a single member of our Establishment not intent in making things a million times worse through perceived short-term self-interest?
The Iranians must be p*ssin' themselves laughing at this farce being played out by our military, the government, the media and now, even, the clergy.
Who pays these fools' salaries? Oh, I guess we do. Surprise.
Guardian - Loot is the foe of truth
One phrase is rapidly rising to the top as a catch-all, get-out-of-anything card, be it a C-list celeb trying to reinvigorate a stalled career on the back of a 'good cause', a mobile phone recycling sc...heme turning a nifty profit on green guilt or, now, a squaddie looking down the barrel of a nice little earner for being in the wrong place at the right time:
"A percentage is going to charity"
At least some of them have had the decency to figure out how fate played out, how lucky they were (as others were not), how capricious the media embrace can and will be, and made the best of it all. To them, good luck and god speed.
BBC - UK captive 'felt like a traitor'
Friday, April 06, 2007
Beans there. Heard that. Ad nauseam.
Beans are bad for Greens...
Not too terribly sure what the point of this commentary is.
It's a done deal, so may as well give up? We're doomed, so let's go out with a bang... in Benidorm rather than Bali (or vice versa, as advocated)?
Just a wild guess, but I'm guessing the job would not be too much fun, or the paper getting to sell too many more issues, if you restricted your function to cycling around your home and work base reporting on low [mode of transport here]-miles camp sites around London.
It all rather smacks of the regular self-flagellation and rather hypocritical pontification that the media engages upon to show it's up there on the concern front with green issues, but 'please would everyone else change their ways first as we have jobs.... very nice ones, too... to do.'
Will you not be trying out the largesse that follows these press releases? And sharing it? 'As I savoured my first real lamb kebab, courtesy of Tikka Air and Hotel Payola, I could only reflect on how cheap it was...'.
Only yesterday I watched BBC news solemnly advise the latest from the IPCC, with correspondents in Brussels, Mexico and even Antarctica specially flown there to share the anguish of those who are losing tourists... because of the tourists and media going there.
The whole thing would be ironic if it were not slightly more tragic, and an indictment of those who talk a lot, but do very little, especially as whacking a fir in the firmament in compo is now accepted as pretty pointless.
Have a nice Easter . That was something to do with a guy who suffered so others would not, right?
Not too terribly sure what the point of this commentary is.
It's a done deal, so may as well give up? We're doomed, so let's go out with a bang... in Benidorm rather than Bali (or vice versa, as advocated)?
Just a wild guess, but I'm guessing the job would not be too much fun, or the paper getting to sell too many more issues, if you restricted your function to cycling around your home and work base reporting on low [mode of transport here]-miles camp sites around London.
It all rather smacks of the regular self-flagellation and rather hypocritical pontification that the media engages upon to show it's up there on the concern front with green issues, but 'please would everyone else change their ways first as we have jobs.... very nice ones, too... to do.'
Will you not be trying out the largesse that follows these press releases? And sharing it? 'As I savoured my first real lamb kebab, courtesy of Tikka Air and Hotel Payola, I could only reflect on how cheap it was...'.
Only yesterday I watched BBC news solemnly advise the latest from the IPCC, with correspondents in Brussels, Mexico and even Antarctica specially flown there to share the anguish of those who are losing tourists... because of the tourists and media going there.
The whole thing would be ironic if it were not slightly more tragic, and an indictment of those who talk a lot, but do very little, especially as whacking a fir in the firmament in compo is now accepted as pretty pointless.
Have a nice Easter . That was something to do with a guy who suffered so others would not, right?
Poor coral reef spoils diving. Meanwhile, in other news, the planet collapses
An interesting twist on IPCC 2, the sequel.
I haven't quite figured out yet how or why this drib is drabbing out, but we have another doom & gloom from 'them', whoever 'they' are.
But this time it seems to have been designed on another tack. Rather than talk about the totality of it all and how it affects every one of us, the move seems to now be from fear to guilt.
So 'we' are now being told that 'our' behaviour is going to hurt 'them'.
As I say... interesting. If we can't be motivated by threats to our personal situation, I wonder how effective it will be to play it that the Easter holiday flight is hurting a herdsman in Africa.
BBC - Billions face climate change risk
LATimes - Dire warming report too soft, scientists say
Reuters - Stark climate change warning
ADDENDUM - Kids bear brunt of climate warming - report - What next... or the bunny gets it? This seems to be a slight sledgehammer approach where I would advise more caution. Still, what's done is done. Hope it works.
I haven't quite figured out yet how or why this drib is drabbing out, but we have another doom & gloom from 'them', whoever 'they' are.
But this time it seems to have been designed on another tack. Rather than talk about the totality of it all and how it affects every one of us, the move seems to now be from fear to guilt.
So 'we' are now being told that 'our' behaviour is going to hurt 'them'.
As I say... interesting. If we can't be motivated by threats to our personal situation, I wonder how effective it will be to play it that the Easter holiday flight is hurting a herdsman in Africa.
BBC - Billions face climate change risk
LATimes - Dire warming report too soft, scientists say
Reuters - Stark climate change warning
ADDENDUM - Kids bear brunt of climate warming - report - What next... or the bunny gets it? This seems to be a slight sledgehammer approach where I would advise more caution. Still, what's done is done. Hope it works.
Friday, March 30, 2007
There is an e-bit in there... honest
Talk about Newsnight
IRAQ
At first I almost joined those in Daily Mail Land wondering why on Earth we had Comical Ali's daft cousin on to waffle for Iran and Islam, but actually I'd say go for it... he did more damage to his cause under Jeremy's more than gentle probing than could have been hoped. For all the good it does knowing that 'we' are 'dealing' with those whose national footy stadium must be the only one with wheeled goalposts.
Sadly, the opposing side of the inevitable Newsnight 'twofer' seemed to be a guy who would have followed Nevile Chamberlain into the gates of hell or, rather, the gas chambers. Usually I am irritated by the dog-fight style of provoking commentary that simply drives ratings and makes the BBC moderator look the only voice of reason, but this issue deserved a lot more.
As it stands, no one is coming out of this well, especially the poor sods seemingly almost forgotten about, at least 14 of them. Plus ca change...
I await with dread the eventual outcome, even, god willing (or should that be 'fingers' crossed'?, their return. Then we will see the pols and the media and their 'experts' at their ... most predictable.
MR. 'I CAN, BUT THEN AGAIN...' MILIBAND
In light of recent comparisons with Communist Russian state behaviours by certain people and administrations, I was amazed to see the staged crowd scenes by Labour's hype & spin department.
As to Mr. Miliband as a leader, you only have to read his Spectator speech, repeated in the Telegraph the other day:
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/03/see-what-staying-up-all-night-does-for.html
A shame so many used it as a shop to simply fire insults at each other, but then, that's today's' Parliament. Thank heavens I still have a vote. All I need now is a worthy direction to point it.
That's along with the rest of the electorate, some of which I do hope are still also watching closely. And not just the Westminster Wonderboys and Girls in the lobby, with pens poised to tell us what to think in their 'We know best-fest', flush with exclusive new vigour following the shock and awe victory over Mr. Fawkes the other night, by cleverly choosing a weak foe bobbing about in a big seas (sound familiar?) and using overwhelming force... that was of course available by taxpayers' funding.
COCA... ISN'T IT?
Sadly I these days have to view all such pieces with a cloud of suspicion over the objectivity of the news media, but what I saw made me very sad and very angry.
Like so many cases, a person says dark is milk, and that's it. Maybe JP does get to rebut, but the silky words of the PR blonde distraction effort still register despite her getting to squirm and issue a series of nonsense about 'reviews' and 'talking' and 'stats' any pol would be proud of. And to her 'determination to strive harder' she gets a thank you... 'as that's all we have time for'. This latter is set to be carved into the headstone of accuracy and truth in broadcast news.
In a few nights, for the media and all who watched it, this will be passed. Not for these kids. And how many luvvies in London would see doing without their choccy fix.. as one ethical commitment too far? Do I not buy my kids an Easter Egg? If so whose? I have no idea how to act as consumer. Oh well, the moment has passed. But I'm sure it will win a news award.
ps: Why, if this site is moderated, do we get a post that says 'test blog', yet some I am aware of that do offer interesting commentary do not make it on board?
ADDENDUM - I was 'dissed'... I think. Why does it always come across as a BBC shill?
Mr. Wallace @ 32
'...maybe some posts do not get on here as they may be too long winded or tedious.(Don't take that wrong, it's just an observation)'
None taken! Plus adding to the quality of discussion significantly by offering some possible explanations, thanks. Though as the issue of editorial control and 'moderation' does crop up on these pages, one has to wonder 'who' gets to decide on 'what' is long-winded and/or tedious as a basis for rejection. I don't think 'you are boring' or 'I prefer complex things debated in one sentence' is really legitimate for censorship purposes. There lies the route to a soundbite-driven culture. Worse, the removal of context as a way to ensure accurate communication of thoughts and information. I do agree that brevity is best, if possible. However I think it was Mark Twain who said: 'It takes a long time to craft a worthwhile piece of long copy. Even longer to produce a short one'. Unpaid bloggers sadly do not always enjoy the luxury of time in getting across points as, say, big media commentators. 'You doesn't pays yer money, so's yer takes even more chances'.
And I do still feel the actual answer to my question may still elude us. On reflection, my thought is that the moderator is tolerant of those simply trying to ensure they are posting correctly on a technical basis, though that could possibly make for longer, and less productive, threads.
'ps .what's wrong with the Daily Mail? It's a great paper'
I don't think I wrote that there was anything wrong with it, necessarily. It was just a way of making an observation... in shortwi...handed terms:)
IRAQ
At first I almost joined those in Daily Mail Land wondering why on Earth we had Comical Ali's daft cousin on to waffle for Iran and Islam, but actually I'd say go for it... he did more damage to his cause under Jeremy's more than gentle probing than could have been hoped. For all the good it does knowing that 'we' are 'dealing' with those whose national footy stadium must be the only one with wheeled goalposts.
Sadly, the opposing side of the inevitable Newsnight 'twofer' seemed to be a guy who would have followed Nevile Chamberlain into the gates of hell or, rather, the gas chambers. Usually I am irritated by the dog-fight style of provoking commentary that simply drives ratings and makes the BBC moderator look the only voice of reason, but this issue deserved a lot more.
As it stands, no one is coming out of this well, especially the poor sods seemingly almost forgotten about, at least 14 of them. Plus ca change...
I await with dread the eventual outcome, even, god willing (or should that be 'fingers' crossed'?, their return. Then we will see the pols and the media and their 'experts' at their ... most predictable.
MR. 'I CAN, BUT THEN AGAIN...' MILIBAND
In light of recent comparisons with Communist Russian state behaviours by certain people and administrations, I was amazed to see the staged crowd scenes by Labour's hype & spin department.
As to Mr. Miliband as a leader, you only have to read his Spectator speech, repeated in the Telegraph the other day:
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/03/see-what-staying-up-all-night-does-for.html
A shame so many used it as a shop to simply fire insults at each other, but then, that's today's' Parliament. Thank heavens I still have a vote. All I need now is a worthy direction to point it.
That's along with the rest of the electorate, some of which I do hope are still also watching closely. And not just the Westminster Wonderboys and Girls in the lobby, with pens poised to tell us what to think in their 'We know best-fest', flush with exclusive new vigour following the shock and awe victory over Mr. Fawkes the other night, by cleverly choosing a weak foe bobbing about in a big seas (sound familiar?) and using overwhelming force... that was of course available by taxpayers' funding.
COCA... ISN'T IT?
Sadly I these days have to view all such pieces with a cloud of suspicion over the objectivity of the news media, but what I saw made me very sad and very angry.
Like so many cases, a person says dark is milk, and that's it. Maybe JP does get to rebut, but the silky words of the PR blonde distraction effort still register despite her getting to squirm and issue a series of nonsense about 'reviews' and 'talking' and 'stats' any pol would be proud of. And to her 'determination to strive harder' she gets a thank you... 'as that's all we have time for'. This latter is set to be carved into the headstone of accuracy and truth in broadcast news.
In a few nights, for the media and all who watched it, this will be passed. Not for these kids. And how many luvvies in London would see doing without their choccy fix.. as one ethical commitment too far? Do I not buy my kids an Easter Egg? If so whose? I have no idea how to act as consumer. Oh well, the moment has passed. But I'm sure it will win a news award.
ps: Why, if this site is moderated, do we get a post that says 'test blog', yet some I am aware of that do offer interesting commentary do not make it on board?
ADDENDUM - I was 'dissed'... I think. Why does it always come across as a BBC shill?
Mr. Wallace @ 32
'...maybe some posts do not get on here as they may be too long winded or tedious.(Don't take that wrong, it's just an observation)'
None taken! Plus adding to the quality of discussion significantly by offering some possible explanations, thanks. Though as the issue of editorial control and 'moderation' does crop up on these pages, one has to wonder 'who' gets to decide on 'what' is long-winded and/or tedious as a basis for rejection. I don't think 'you are boring' or 'I prefer complex things debated in one sentence' is really legitimate for censorship purposes. There lies the route to a soundbite-driven culture. Worse, the removal of context as a way to ensure accurate communication of thoughts and information. I do agree that brevity is best, if possible. However I think it was Mark Twain who said: 'It takes a long time to craft a worthwhile piece of long copy. Even longer to produce a short one'. Unpaid bloggers sadly do not always enjoy the luxury of time in getting across points as, say, big media commentators. 'You doesn't pays yer money, so's yer takes even more chances'.
And I do still feel the actual answer to my question may still elude us. On reflection, my thought is that the moderator is tolerant of those simply trying to ensure they are posting correctly on a technical basis, though that could possibly make for longer, and less productive, threads.
'ps .what's wrong with the Daily Mail? It's a great paper'
I don't think I wrote that there was anything wrong with it, necessarily. It was just a way of making an observation... in shortwi...handed terms:)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)