Priorities

Newsnight Friday
Newsnight Monday

Not too impressed. How predictable the choices of twofer. How flip the bouffant. How deep the doo-doo we're getting into. Some interesting posts, though.

I type as I watch Monday's GW/CC (they are different, I am told) piece on my PC (shame such a large chunk was missing for copyright reasons. It would have been interesting to see what the BBC editted out of an edit), with this morning's BBC Breakfast summary numberfest still ringing in my ears. Don't know about the EU, but our own bonny lads and lasses are gettting into a froth enough simply in Londonland.
Targets every year or 5, depending on who is in power and hence needs time to make sure the numbers 'fit'.
Sorting things out by 2050 (I rather thought the IPCC report suggested that may be a tad late, but there we go, it's good to meet a target rather than solve an actual problem when your index-linked is based on it).
There were the usual, if highly sensible, suspects.
When I were was a lad it was cycle to work, share a bath with a friend and put on an extra jummy.
They all still apply (except the bath one... just hope shower cubicles will be big enough for the new plan).
But now it's insulation - fully endorse that one, and in fact have suggested a plan of my own: here, bulbs and standby.
The last two also make good sense, but the details still seem a bit vague. And after the road pricing farce my ears get attuned to words like 'suggest', 'encourage', 'make', etc, especially when they morph into 'we'll fine you if you don't'.
Like 4x4s, these items were and indeed are on sale legally, and possibly even generate VAT in the process. So I do wonder who bears the cost of them being taken away and replaced which, in the case of bulbs, means swapping a 20p effort for a £3 one. Not to mention, in some more stylish cases, the fittings too.
Standby button offing is just plain common sense, but I stand ready to see how Messrs Philips, Sony, LG, etc, get on board with the UK government's plans, in the great global scheme of things. I guess they will, because they'll have to. But again, will that mean I have a salaried and pensioned army of red dot monitors turning up on my doorstep to demand I scrap my perfectly good old TV and buy a new eco-one, with no concerns as to the manufacturing costs in terms of enviROI? Even though I do get up and switch it all off at night at the socket?
Funnily enough, in the same slot it was announced that there was a German outfit about to build a new coal fired power station. But not to worry, its emissions will be... 'better'.
Now, I don't know about your domestic output and how close to a personal 20% reduction you're meeting, but it all rather paled into insignificance when some environmental experts were wheeled out for their 2p worth.
Tony Juniper of FoE was as helpful as a director/spokesperson of a major charitable corporation can be, but what did make me pay attention was the long-haired, but seemingly un-named individual who advised that 2/3 of the energy from our power stations is wasted.
Now, that seems quite a lot. Almost 67% in fact. And despite living and breathing this stuff for a while I'd never heard it before.
And vs. all the other stuff being wittered on about it seems, if true, to be something much more worthy of the talking head's attention in comparison to most I have had served up by our media of late.
For what it's worth, what our media and scientific community IS worth in terms of climate debate may be followed to some degree starting here.
It's an interesting discussion. I think my most relevant contribution as it applies here was this:
'I think I understand now why I get so agitated by science reporting these days. These guys are not required by a huge 'system' to allow anything trouble the viewer by way of loose ends. Hence with climate change: 'the planet is doomed... for this reason'. Period. Or, 'the planet is fine... for this reason'. Period. Nice soundbite. Nice headline. Nice ratings.
Not awfully helpful, though, when we're not too sure.'

Ever get that sinking feeling?

CO2 output from shipping twice as much as airlines

As I scattered my dried apricots on my muesli this morning, I attempted to feel noble in the hope that the ingredients need not have flown here.

Well, it seems not. So I guess that full English with a Gloucester Old Spot forming the main dish is looking pretty darn tasty... and eco... now.

Or.... is it? Dum, de dum, dum... daaaaah!

I am sailing, I am sailing, cross the sea....

piMP my ride!

Ministers put foot down on carbon emissions

'The number of miles driven by ministerial drivers has increased sharply...'

Well, hot diggedy. Anyone would think they say one thing and do another.

Swallowing your Greens. That's ratings.

Eco-label will create green standard for food, says Miliband

Will this be run alongside the one from the other retailers, which will be designed to tell a very different set of stories and totally flummox the consumer? Instead of traffic lights what will we have? Eco-stars? Green thumbs up? They are going to have to make the packs bigger at this rate (oh, the irony)! How many lobbyists, consultants and 'experts' will feed off this one for the next decade. Ship-borne dried apricots vs. airflown prawns vs. Spuds shunted from one end of the UK for scrubbing and then back to be deemed 'local' to where they are bought.

And are we going to have sub-sets where there is what is good for local farming, the local MP, the national purse, global environment, targets, media ratings and all the various pulls on green issues that can often be... at odds. Me, I vote less CO2... and unproductive civil servants and other talk-onlys to monitor and debate it all.

This is actually a great idea in principle, but when I see a PR piece floated telling me only something 'will be announced that is to considered' I have to wonder what exactly is going to be done at all, if ever.

For a change.

DEFRA - Mr. Miliband's Speech
Telegraph - 'Traffic light' labels backed by parents
Marketing Week - Parents reject GDA labelling system
BBC - Public want food 'traffic lights'

When two sides go to bore

Open airspace to cut carbon, say airlines

At first I thought 'Nice one, Tel!', as it seemed another ace bit of spin
by RyanAir.

But in there, somewhere, is a modicum of logic.

Just like road pricing.

It's just a pity there tow sets of camps, at such extremes dealing with
it all, logic - and action - are as likely as that Gloucester Old Spot
dive-bombing crows out my window.

I read this and am appalled

Top companies 'failing to report true greenhouse gas emissions'

I just wonder how much of one's donation goes to a 'senior climate change analyst'.

Sorry to be flip, but really.

The other bit is bad too, but I wonder if it would not be something best left to others to discover, prove share and comment upon.

Oo, I don't know. Like the Government? The EU? The media?

File and forget. At least a column was filled, allegedly.

It all adds up. Or does it?

Calculating the carbon cost of business travel

I wonder how much calculating results in not doing in the first place.

Homeworking, video-conferencing, anyone?

Whacking a fir in the Gobi to compensate is not better than nothing, if and when the alternative of not travelling is available.

It will also make for a thinner travel section as you don't get to go to report on a Bali sap where the climate change delegates will go to relax. Or their ads.

But it does spoil the jollies some, luckier than others, enjoy.

ADDENDUM:

A very comprehensive post by EvilClanger, most of which I could not agree more with.

My only area of concern strays into the social costs of sledgehammer taxes, so I am reassured to see the word ‘graduated’ in the commercial tax calculation. I do get nervous by what seems a vaguely elitist, urban-centric view that those who live in the country all escaped there and enjoy a bohemian lifestyle. I’d venture many do not have the luxury of a penthouse in Canary Wharf, especially if they have families or don’t work in the City. I do believe it’s because that’s all they can afford.

ps: I think fur is now back ‘in’, probably featured in a gossip or style section near here.

... on the ridiculous

Branson Offers $25 Million to Remove Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

Taking the point about counter-productivity, it is however worth considering that examples are good things to be set.

While Richard Branson is simply one of many airfleet owners (and got a lot of PR from his towing them to the runway and claims about bio-kerosene... which seem to have passed into history) at least accepting 'things need to be done' (and, at least, putting some money where his mouth is), I would point out that he is also something to do with sticking half a dozen rich tourists in a rocket to look down on the planet they just pushed a smidge further to oblivion. I write this on the presumption that the intended propellant will be greenhouse gas-creating in its consumption.

If it's by catapult I'll apologise.

Speaking as one a tad put off by such antics, I do wonder if the creation of a green elite ('You may call me Nobel' Al, Tony 'it's not really practical not to when I'm hitting the lecture circuit' ' Blair, 'My other car is a Prius' Anycleb, etc) who 'need' to fly the world to spread their message 'as it's their job', may not be having the level of inspiration that is intended on those not so blessed with the fame/money luxuries of choice?

Having watched Total Recall, I'm a tad dubious about stuffing big blocks of goo under the ground, in case they leak back.

For now I think I'll go for the tree thing. Sounds promising. Unless some carb-con credit traders decide to horn in on the deal. Whoops, I think they already have...

Troubel is nobody's looking like fixin' it. Quick or otherwise.

One from Dave of Solarventi: Warning on quick fix for climate change

While I'm the first to endorse not doing something that makes things worse - my enviROI principle - what I do concern myself more with is guff like this:

'The commission sets seven stiff tests for policymakers drawing up proposals, including ensuring climate policy is consistent with a healthy economy and does not involve a piecemeal approach. "Knee-jerk regulatory responses to the climate change challenge and announcements of measures in a piecemeal fashion should be avoided. ''New initiatives should be evidence-based, add value to the existing climate programme and make clear which market imperfections they are seeking to resolve."

What I don't see is a clear statement that the most important aspect is these things should save the planet first, and quickly, before we start worrying about anything else, such as healthy... short-term national advantage and associated political, NGO & carbcon-trading careers.

Pop goes the.. well, everything, really

Can pop take on global warming?

Qu: Do you think this plan really could help to slow down global warming?

A: Maybe, if you mean by not very much, and be by the minute extra awareness it may create in the public's awareness, which could filter through to major corporations one day. Otherwise, a snowball’s chance in Greenland which, as pointed out on Saturday by one of said corporation's bosses on the Today programme - http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/01/enjoy-today-tomorrow-is-looking-lot.html (well worth a scary 5 minutes of what's left of our lives), used to be roasty-toasty, so there really is no problem with global warming.

Qu: And does the involvement of stars in campaigns like this encourage you to take part in them, or does it put you off?

A: Depends on the star. And depends on the campaign. Some obviously are ordinary folk, just like the rest of us, and are entitled to be concerned about the situation and want to do something about it. This, sadly, smacks of a green-elite concoction between minders, PR folk and mates in the activist community with whom they had a Fairtrade Chardonnay last night at the Ivy. It's a nice thought, but to take on Shell, Nestle and Pepisco's carb-con trading budgets, or even their marketing might (who sponsors pop stars again?) will take an awful lot of download PRS dues. Check which way the wind is blowing before unzipping guys!

And it all can go the shape of a pear when one lobs up at a gig next year in a private chopper wearing a polar bear coat, as saving the planet was sooo last year.

If our PM can't stay on message for 10 seconds when the future career beckons, I reckon we'll see some others straying too.

And when that happens the deniers will say 'look, see, hypocrites', and the games will carry on. Ordinary folk will duck back in their bunkers and just try and manage.

But it is a nice excuse for some media luvvies to meet some yoof icons. When it gets out of this timeslot on broadcast, and the Guardian in print, for the right reasons, I’ll be less inclined to see it as more than a stunt.

ADDENDUM:

It is inevitable that, having been asked to comment, some see no irony in critiquing those who comment:
I guess you could call some responses cynical, but I’d like to think a few were in fact considered commentary. A question was asked, after all! To be more concerned with the characters of the respondents in such a situation seems a tad censorious, maybe? Perhaps there was an expectation of a series in gushing support?

It is interesting therefore, that if one took this blog’s participants as a cross-section (if not a very accurate one, statistically), the percentages would suggest that such actions, or at least the overt in-your-face PR-driven nature of them (as a personal financial transaction would not the same effect be created by simply doing it and not broadcasting hither and thither?) has not been as inspirational as desired. A bit like buying a Hybrid to attend the awards show (with tame Paparazzi and scribe to record), whilst keeping the Range Rover with the others in the climate-controlled garage for clubbing duties later on that night.

I doubt any would forget the mostly sincere effort and impact of Live Aid. However, though admittedly possibly coloured by recent reporting (the media can feed at both ends of such things) of late, there seem to have been some questions raised (many at the sharp end) as to the actual beneficial value in terms of return on investment of having a bit of a do, making squillions and squirting them elsewhere. Personally I think, at the time, it was a lot better than nothing. But times have moved on. Lessons have been learned. Cannot doubts be raised and questions asked if one feels a pre-traveled road is being trod again? I’ve lost count of the number of celebs who ‘are seeing for themselves’ things in places I can only dream of visiting, and indeed am being told I should not. Is there not a danger of a backlash from such a WIAC-YOAC ‘we’re in and can; you’re out and can’t’ culture, actively supported by the media industry who are always tagging along for the ride and the ratings?

Great that they are throwing some money at the problem, I just hope it is money they can afford and will be money well spent and not wasted (or turned for profit). Listening again to the heads of Nestle, Pepsico and Shell in that Today link above, I’d say they have their work cut out. Such guys have only one agenda, and amounts of money (not their own) to defend it.

Finally, since you ask, while I can’t speak for other respondents, by signing a lot of cheques (against home and pension) AND working very long hours I have created a free website (link in name above) that is designed to help ordinary folk find re:uses for everyday things (a few, amazingly, even found in the style sections of the glossies) - aimed at helping and inspiring Fiesta Family in Brum (whose main experience of carbon trading is the retroactive (the only aspect I have a probelm with) tax on their holiday flight) as much as Prius Person in Notting Hill, Westminster or their estate in Wiltshire.

Ultimately, I believe if this, mostly silent, struggling (mortgages, work not accessible by tube or taxi, kids to get to school en route, two weeks in summer and dying for some sun that only a few can take advantage of year-round on the verandah of their trailer... on location), but ultimately equally concerned majority can see how they too can make a difference, we can move corporations and governments to act.

Too far?

Just back from walking the kids to school. Gorgeous, if cold.

Which got me to pondering real-life ways to save cost and the planet around the home. As I look out of my study's North window I can see a row of housing opposite. It's interesting to watch the frost disappear in the sunlight. But also depressing to see how many have no frost at all, which means they either didn't know about, didn't care about or couldn't afford (the purchase price) of lagging.

Of all the banks who send my 'We've gone carbon neutral' PR-pap, why could one not simply say: 'Here's an interest free loan to buy lagging - we calculate, at worst, pay back is x months/years, at which point you repay us, plus £1 to go towards the next applicant'. I'd put that on our front page.

It's all a matter of degree, if you excuse the pun.

To watch TV this morning, I entered a very dark room, as we have shutters. I am pretty sure thick curtains would be better eco-wise, but a) they won't fit in the same void and b) I can't afford them (see above).

To switch the thing on (one option: don't), plus the SKY box, I needed some light. And there I stood, at the door, trying to figure out which would be better. Low energy bulb on for a few minutes? Or open a shutter and unleash the cold air?

Probably an green dilemma too far. I may pop it in IT-anic Vs., though. There may be an answer. I'm guessing the former.

'Bah, humbug' - le son et lumiere

When I crest the last hill on the remaining few miles of the M50 on my way back from London late at night, one of the most welcome sights is the spire of St Mary's in Ross. It is a sodium yellow-illuminated symbol that I am almost home. It is also, by virtue of needing several dirty great big lamps to achieve this effect, a rather major consumer of juice, and hence cause of the dreaded GeeGees (greenhouse gasses).

Now, do I storm up the the next parish whatever meeting and insist they blow them out right away? Well, it's a consideration, really, is it not? And hence a socio, enviro, and all sorts of other 'io's' dilemma.

'Cos that being the case, I should equally well be lobbing up at the next meeting of the guys who run Wembley Stadium, which as I leave London on the A40 is also rather pretty. Or the Millenium Bridge (pictured).

Sorry, no solutions. Like firework displays, I rather see me getting into hot water between heart and head just with myself, let alone with anyone else.

But as is my way, I do think it a question worth pondering. And I wonder how many stalwarts of the nan-e state and guilt-e activism have also decided these glowing icons to be best left out of the tsk-tsk finger-pointing.

Maybe one for a Prof's Poser... or London's Mayor. Relative to the additional emissions (above simply driving around in, say, a Prius) of all the 4x4s in the city, what would be the negative GeeGee impact be relative to purely decorative illumination of public buildings? I'm not even sure which side of a hundred it would go.

Declan Does Davos

I'm just about to walk the boys to school (no e-smugness intended; we only live about a mile away, it's a nice(ish) morning and I need the exercise) and caught the tail end of BBC Breakfast's coverage of Davos.

So we have their cuddly reporter there, and to intercept reader's email challenges as to why everyone is flying in to discuss (amongst other things) global warming, a solution is to hand: Offsetting! Yes, Aunty is, along with all the rest, going to bung 13 quid into a bucket and throw it on the forest fire. That'll sort it then.

I would rather have hoped they might have sussed by now that such simplistic buy-offs are a little under the microscope; not just for what they don't do to help, but for the fact that they simply say 'keep on doing what you fancy', and by giving some guys in suits some cash it will all be hunky-dory.

For what it's worth, I think it obvious that major leaders have to meet, but it may be nice that they start erring on doing so in less poor ways environmentally (as well as rich financially), whilst propagating the D2AID2AIS hypocrisy (Sounds like a Robert Ludlum novel - ask me here if you want to know what it means).

BBC - Green Agenda

It's all over. It isn't now?

Yet another award we have gamely gone in for.

I think one reason we do not often win is I can't resist posts like this.

Because today it's still be advertised, despite:

"The closing date for the first stage of entries is 19 January 2007. Successful entrants will be notified by the end of January"

I also love the irony of the ad next to it. I guess the snow is no longer any good in Europe, so Canada is now the place to go to ski... for those keen on saving the planet, and whocan afford to do so.

The most important letter I may have written yet

To this guy, because of this: Are you getting warmer or colder on the climate front?

"Good one. As a fellow minority (though I'd say it's more accurate to say 'noisy minority' on behalf of a sadly silent (cowed) majority), it's nice to locate a fellow who has noticed the extremes capturing the headlines, and initiatives from lazy press and pols, at the expense of a sensible and potentially productive middle ground. I have been banging on about this in my site's blog for years now.

And I fire off a salvo daily to the media blogs of left and right (or activist vs. commercial-with-an-interest) agenda-dripping organs, trying to get debate sensible, facts on the table and opinion as objective as possible, free from undercover lobbyists and PR folk pretending to be 'an engineer/climate scientist form Bootle (don’t mean to be rude, but I’ve left that in as it is by coincidence the town I use in my catchphrases. Kismet?) . It's lonely. Ratings and column inches and TV op-eds are to be had from conflict, not co-operation, so I don't get much support.

I'd love to talk more. As an ex-Civ Eng. grad (a few years ago, and only granted on the promise I would not try and build anything), I can handle ROIs, both financial and eco, and like to get a grip on what's being pitched before I commit. And as an ad-man with some measure of success (my own multi-national agency for one) understanding brands and the power to influence the conumer, I can assess what's a waste of time and what Joe Public may go for better than some.

You'll be copping some feedback (dare I guess from deniers and activists, lauding and decrying) for the latter half of your piece.

I don't won't to go there. I see no point. Is there warming? Is there not? Is it man-made. Is it not? Is it man-worsened... let others waste time chewing on that. I have bigger deserts to scorch (I do often have Climate or Carbon opinions you may disagree with).

My mission is to reduce waste. As an engineer ineffciency offends me. As and ad-man I see no profit in it (in fact I see/saw greater profits in not doing it, with PR and CSR inc., a long while ago. Hence Junkk.com). And as an environmentalist and parent I see it as a direction better taken than not. Just in case.

I need help, because what I am doing is big, getting bigger, and I can't cope. And I can't fund it any more.

I've tried government, and will keep on. These guys are morons, seeking career-makers based on draft targets and short-termism.

I've tried NGOs, and will keep on. But these guys have salaries and pensions in mind, and that means building empires first, not solutions. And charities like keeping it extreme to maintain income fighting the enemy on 'our' behalf.

I've tried commerce. But they are so complex now I can't get through to a guy who can commit, even if he/she would. Gatekeepers. Strata. Focus groups. Matrices. Marketing. PR. Production. CSR. All vying for turf.

And I've tried the media. News wants extremes. Enviro wants the game to themselves (The ‘green elite’ is a nice handle, and ticket to a Bali global warming conference – oh, the irony). Business needs me to make (MySpace)) or lose (Boo!) a fortune before they'll meet me in the Ivy.

Fancy trying to DO something together on a basis we both seem to agree on?

Or at the very least can I chat with you about what I think the common man and woman and child feels about all that's being 'done' in our names. You may agree; you may not. But at least hear me out and feed what you will to those you have access to."

I hope he is sincere. I hope he agrees. I hope he writes back. I hope we can do something.

Three times lucky!

I like Newsnight, One of the few progs with teeth. Just watched last night's on the PC.

And lo, the blog allowed me to kill 3 birds (is that a PC-accepted phrase anymore?) with one email ('scuse the BB repetition; it's been a busy week).

"Just watched the programme on my PC – nice feature, well done (which has a bearing on the first of today’s topics).

Licence Fee

I was transfixed by Ms. Wark’s interview with, one presumes, the guy who signs her pay cheque. But at least one of them had figured out who funds it. I’m afraid I don’t think he came off too well on this. Without rewinding to review again, I came away with two main impressions. One is that the choice is seen by him to be between ‘quality’ and toys. While they are a factor in the former, I’d have also thought numbers of bodies, how efficiently they deliver ‘product’ to consumer and what they get paid to do so would be worth looking at too. It may have helped to swing those of us not on indexed-linked salaries with competitors at every turn, and who wonder why it requires a UK reporter (and crew?) to go to the other part of the world where there is BBC representation, to film a 30’ filler on global warming. It is classic civil service ‘empire-build first, delivery later’ thinking at its worst. We then come to the matter of salaries and bonuses, especially at the top. What is the point equating the BBC with the private sector? It operates totally differently. And I’d imagine anyone going into it at executive level would know that. The compensation for not dripping in cash is (was) security and the chance not to dig through the barrel base further and further in search of the ratings to justify one’s fiscal worth in comparison with the private sector. As with ‘stars’ such as Ross, Moyles, etc, I simply just don’t buy the argument that you have to compete by playing ‘this any price talent’ game. Working for the BBC gives you access to a whole country in developing the skills (and in terms of stars, audience) upon which to forge very nice careers internally or onwards. It’s lazy management, and nothing less, that leads to clinging on to existing staff no matter what, when a simple ‘Sorry, we’ll miss you’ could suffice. And don’t come back with that ‘we need to attract top talent’ argument. It’s out there. You just have to stay on top of where it is and be ready to move.

Big Brother

I normally wouldn't give this a microsecond's thought, let alone commit to keyboard, but as our nation's finest pols, NGOs and media have decided it is more important than anything else (unless a tornado whisks the BB house to Oz), why not me as well?

I have two words to offer: AGENDA and EDIT.

From the media company that sets this up, to the media that feed on the controversy so set up (as if they didn't know), how anyone with a brain can assign any significance to the words and actions of a vetted and selected and manipulated group of human extremes is beyond me. It's like watching a show called BIG BOMBER and getting in a lather because all the guys with (I'll avoid any potentially un-PC or pejorative descriptions here) huddle around in one corner discussing hair bleach and exotic dinner ingredients whilst looking ominously across the room at the lone US Marine popped in to see what happens.

And should things not quite work to the full requirements of the AGENDA, there is always the EDIT. You can leave in, or out, what serves your needs best. Leave to simmer, and serve.

The day people don’t notice and discuss differences (I’d prefer celebrating them rather than trying to homogenise us all) between each other is when we are all clones, and even then I’m sure we’ll still do it.

Pathetic. Shame on the whole sorry cabal involved and feeding off it all. Including those rushing to be offended, preferably on a guest slot.

Green

Gosh, dilemmas. I don’t envy that poor chap from Innocent. I wonder if he imagined he was running into the same kind of deal as the DG? Here to stick it to Tescos (maybe not: they are a supplier, after all) and find oneself lumped along with them in the nasty capitalist expansion stakes. Not quite the same, or fair, to be so simplistic. but Ms. Wark did raise some pretty critical issues.
If we really are serious about this planet saving thing, we to grasp that there are lots of us, getting to be more and more, most of whom have little else to do than earn, aspire, and hence purchase in an upward spiral that has only one end point that I can see, if left unchecked. So while oodles better than a Tesco air-flown mango I’m sure (if a few aisles apart), as a clearly ethical business that started in a fair stall and now is expanding globally, making and distributing and all that stuff, it must be hard to weigh the various considerations.
I myself suffer the same daily concerns with my business (it’s very hard to create anything new without adding to the environmental costs), and often find myself shy of the ideal by demands of family and immediate, vs. far, future. But I do try and avoid getting hit by my own boomerang and mouthing off too much on what others should do whilst not doing it myself (a long, growing and depressing list developing in this regard), and so far have managed to produce a service and, with luck soon, products that actually serve to reduce or reuse when they hit the marketing stream. And not a target in sight!
Finally no, I didn’t rush into carb-con offsetting either, but fear that the essential wisdom of something like this has been tainted in the public’s eyes by some much-ballyhooed efforts being poisoned chalices or schemes designed more to serve agendas and salaries than any decent, global (Kalahari bushmen breathe the same air we’re thinking of trading) environmental ROI.

Back to work:)"

A right Royal...

He's at it again (putting one's size nines in one's gob, don't ya know).

Taxpayers see green over Prince's flight

Who will rid us of these troublesome, self-appointed celeb/pol/regal mouthpieces of planet saving, who almost all make me want to buy a Hummer to drive to the airport to fly to Australia to plant an oak in the desert and then get surprised when it croaks and lets off methane decomposing.

I think I was a tad more polite in the post:

"At least at the bottom of this post there are some carbon-offset (one presumes legit and effective) ads and, rather wonderfully, Tiger Moth flights & Queen's 80th £5 coin sales. At least at my cycle of reading . Buy 19 of them and she can hand the keys to junior and he can get there on his own!

It’s all a matter of degree.

I hope he feels his advisers are worth the money they cost us, and his standing as an eco-spokesperson. Tony Blair has already blown his cred (and that of the govt. he heads and whose messages we are meant to heed and follow) to prep his next career's travel requirements hypocrisy-free. And I'm sure Mr. Yeo has a good explanation for his private flight enthusiasm not so long ago, and the entire Lib Dem party are flogging their big cars (to keep on pumping out the gas in new hands) and buying new ones (to add still more).

Meanwhile the rest of us are to take what exactly from such examples, and do what by them?
What they say. Not what they do. Apparently.
I think we need new, and more credible role models.

I think of course HRH is entitled to fly. How else to do his job? But I think for such a thing he should do at his own expense and slap down such silly spin from his munchkins (most of whom can stay at home rather than trying to jump on a jolly) to try to justify it. And I think to gain some credibility back for his beliefs he needs to weigh the positive promo of such awards (or any other eco-adventure) to the negative such bad publicity inevitably attracts if it’s not well structured. It's a fact. Like having an Aston and a Prius. It's going to happen, Assess the bigger picture. Or maybe the chance to schmooze with celebs like Al is just too hard to resist vs. setting an example?"

Indy
BBC - note a slight similarity in the reporting?
Telegraph

Carb-con

For the first time in a long time, I read a piece that seemed to pretty much say what I've been eyebrow-twitching, if not saying, for a while, and in quite calm, lucid and pragmatic terms: Planting trees won't offset jetting to the sun

I had to write:

'There's a certain irony to this headline as I watch my garden head to Oz (and I don't mean Botany Bay - great cartoon by Matt in The Telegraph on just this point, by the way).

Just wanted to say I agree with you. Which for a pretty committed 'green' may sound surprising. I see this issue as too much 'Carb-con jobs for the boys', and not enough doing what's necessary, right and fair.

I also like to see the issue(s) put as factually as possible, and in terms most if not all average folk can appreciate. Well done.

The rest of what you say is less easy to applaud, by simply being so true and unpalatable.

We do need leadership. Strong leadership. And by example (I'm almost afraid to point you at this). Plus we need sensible media support. This is the first I've seen in a while.

Thank you.'

Now, I wonder, will the 'Anon' dogs of PR and lobbyists appear from to savage this debate into further deadlock and inertia?

Indy: Carbon offsetting 'can be harmful'
BBC

An oldie, but a goodie

Long term blog partner Dave of Solarventi (see how sending us stuff brings its own re:ward) has kindly sent me this - Carbon trading for all will save the planet! - from last year.

He is old, I am old. The article is old. But we are all still gold!

It also lets me christen a new Blog category - CARB - which is where what I suspect a slew more 'let's make a killing out of green' tripe will appear more and more.

I have written to the author, as he is on the ball and I find his style more than in keeping with ours:

"I have just been forwarded your July posting (we may be slow, but we get there).

Bearing in mind how Sir Young and Thrusting is shaping up elsewhere in the environess, I found it fascinating, if a worry. I want to save the planet for my kids. Not end up making no difference except to some pols' careers and various interest groups' short, medium and long term cash cow rearing.

I'd be please if you could let me know when you publish any similar such analyses."

We may not want to beat them, but we can at least keep trying to knock them back onto the straight and narrow:)