Keeping up with carbon jargon
All I know is an awful lot has already been committed to stuff based on definitions no one has yet to agree on, let alone understand or get behind.
Showing posts with label CARBON. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CARBON. Show all posts
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Ready. Aim.. er, who gets fired, again?
Although I loathe most targets as the box-ticking wastes of resource they can be, I can see the need for measures. But what is the point of them if there are almost no consequences to their being met. Or not? UK 'may miss 2020 target for CO2'
'Ministers rejected the think tank's claims for several years before finally conceding it was correct.'
I can think of a few ways to save money and do some stuff that may actually help.
Indy - Britain 'miles away' from hitting targets on carbon emissions - Make that 'will miss, I guess'. Standby by for some major bonus-protecting measures from those in charge that will be designed to meet targets if not actually help the planet.
Indy - A mountain awaits the Climate Tsar - Great, the big solution is to create a new job. And how many 'Tsars' can you think of that achieved diddly?
'Ministers rejected the think tank's claims for several years before finally conceding it was correct.'
I can think of a few ways to save money and do some stuff that may actually help.
Indy - Britain 'miles away' from hitting targets on carbon emissions - Make that 'will miss, I guess'. Standby by for some major bonus-protecting measures from those in charge that will be designed to meet targets if not actually help the planet.
Indy - A mountain awaits the Climate Tsar - Great, the big solution is to create a new job. And how many 'Tsars' can you think of that achieved diddly?
Monday, July 30, 2007
Focus on carbon and miss the point
That's the conclusion of Eamon O'Hara in a thought provoking piece about this week's story for The Green Room.
His general suggestion is that by concentrating almost entirely on reducing carbon emissions, we are missing the underlying cause, which is a direct consequence of our western, unsustainable mode of living.
This, he says, "has led to the assumption that if we reduce emissions then our problems are solved, hence the focus on carbon sequestration, renewable energies and environmental technologies."
Which is (and I like this analogy) like "relying on methadone to cure an addiction to heroine."
"We urgently need to think about the more fundamental concept of sustainability and how our lifestyles are threatening not only the environment, but developing countries and global peace and stability."
I don't think anybody can realistically disagree with that statement. (Well, except perhaps the usual 'anti-brigade' comment posters who have immediately branded him as a hippy!)
It's a well and logically argued article, well worth a read. And as one of the comment posters has pointed out - look what happened to the inhabitants of Easter Island when they had consumed all their available resources; they became extinct!
Human beings tend to have a habit of NOT learning the lessons of history and commonly missing the point. Maybe now is time to take a more over-arching view whilst keeping historical precedents in mind?
________________
His general suggestion is that by concentrating almost entirely on reducing carbon emissions, we are missing the underlying cause, which is a direct consequence of our western, unsustainable mode of living.
This, he says, "has led to the assumption that if we reduce emissions then our problems are solved, hence the focus on carbon sequestration, renewable energies and environmental technologies."
Which is (and I like this analogy) like "relying on methadone to cure an addiction to heroine."
"We urgently need to think about the more fundamental concept of sustainability and how our lifestyles are threatening not only the environment, but developing countries and global peace and stability."
I don't think anybody can realistically disagree with that statement. (Well, except perhaps the usual 'anti-brigade' comment posters who have immediately branded him as a hippy!)
It's a well and logically argued article, well worth a read. And as one of the comment posters has pointed out - look what happened to the inhabitants of Easter Island when they had consumed all their available resources; they became extinct!
Human beings tend to have a habit of NOT learning the lessons of history and commonly missing the point. Maybe now is time to take a more over-arching view whilst keeping historical precedents in mind?
________________
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Worth a watch*, I'd say
Raft of flaws found in popular carbon offsetting schemes - An episode of Dispatches on Channel 4 on Monday entitled "The Great Green Smoke Screen" will show academics and environmentalists questioning the ethics and impact of offsetting.
"Dispatches questioned whether big companies such as HSBC and Sky had any right to claim they were "carbon neutral" as a result of buying offsets to undo the effects of their pollution. Instead the programme hinted that more should be done to limit the polluting activity in the first place."
You heard it here first. Well... ish.
*Do however, bear in mind that Ch4 screened another 'Great' doco not so long ago. And if the BBC can get itself mired by editing for effect... and ratings, well, who do we believe now?
"Dispatches questioned whether big companies such as HSBC and Sky had any right to claim they were "carbon neutral" as a result of buying offsets to undo the effects of their pollution. Instead the programme hinted that more should be done to limit the polluting activity in the first place."
You heard it here first. Well... ish.
*Do however, bear in mind that Ch4 screened another 'Great' doco not so long ago. And if the BBC can get itself mired by editing for effect... and ratings, well, who do we believe now?
Monday, June 18, 2007
Mea Culpa?
"This is your captain speaking .......... I'd like to welcome you aboard our low CO2 emission flight to the south of France."
The airline pilots association are claiming that the airline industry is being unfairly targeted as the worst of the contributors to climate change. Full ABTN article.
“Air travel has just been an easy target. But not any more. World air travel actually accounts for only 2% to 3% of global carbon dioxide emissions according to the International Panel on Climate Change and while air travel is proving more popular, carbon dioxide emissions will not be more than 6% by 2050 – a tiny amount compared to the big polluters.”
Isn’t it amazing just how easily human nature forces all of us to adopt an ‘it’s not us, it’s them’ type of attitude? Just one question – who is giving us the real numbers and the actual facts?
But we all may stop jetting off to the Mediterranean sun anyway if the researchers at New Scientist are correct – it will be waaaay tooooo hot for us Brits to handle! See Dangerously hot.
Back to sunny Skegness it is then.
Arms dealing - the career of the future?
Meanwhile, how to profit from Global Warming - become an arms dealer! Taken from The Observer.
'Expect huge migrations of people looking for food and shelter as they flee areas that become uninhabitable because of crop failure or flooding,' he says. 'You are already seeing this happen in places such as Bangladesh. That will force western governments to increase their military spending to keep people out.'
Now that’s how to put an optimistic slant on forthcoming geo-political disasters caused by global warming! Just to be fair though, he has hedged his bets by putting some huge investments into Green technologies too. Heads he wins, tails he wins?
He mentions Bangla Desh – the UN reckons the disastrous Darfur conflict, as well as smaller episodes in Somalia and Ivory Coast, are also a direct consequence, to some degree, of global warming, too. Sci-Tech Today story.
The airline pilots association are claiming that the airline industry is being unfairly targeted as the worst of the contributors to climate change. Full ABTN article.
“Air travel has just been an easy target. But not any more. World air travel actually accounts for only 2% to 3% of global carbon dioxide emissions according to the International Panel on Climate Change and while air travel is proving more popular, carbon dioxide emissions will not be more than 6% by 2050 – a tiny amount compared to the big polluters.”
Isn’t it amazing just how easily human nature forces all of us to adopt an ‘it’s not us, it’s them’ type of attitude? Just one question – who is giving us the real numbers and the actual facts?
But we all may stop jetting off to the Mediterranean sun anyway if the researchers at New Scientist are correct – it will be waaaay tooooo hot for us Brits to handle! See Dangerously hot.
Back to sunny Skegness it is then.
Arms dealing - the career of the future?
Meanwhile, how to profit from Global Warming - become an arms dealer! Taken from The Observer.
'Expect huge migrations of people looking for food and shelter as they flee areas that become uninhabitable because of crop failure or flooding,' he says. 'You are already seeing this happen in places such as Bangladesh. That will force western governments to increase their military spending to keep people out.'
Now that’s how to put an optimistic slant on forthcoming geo-political disasters caused by global warming! Just to be fair though, he has hedged his bets by putting some huge investments into Green technologies too. Heads he wins, tails he wins?
He mentions Bangla Desh – the UN reckons the disastrous Darfur conflict, as well as smaller episodes in Somalia and Ivory Coast, are also a direct consequence, to some degree, of global warming, too. Sci-Tech Today story.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Also cures baldness, the ague, ill humours...
Global Cool is hot on carbon emissions
I just hope that you are right in the hope expressed in your second para.
Just reading the rest of the piece it struck me just how many of the
green elite 'ambassadors' already on board seemed to think nothing
of flying hither and thither in the name of saving the planet...
with it all being hunky-dory so long, one presumes, as it is 'offset'.
As someone who only cares about genuine efforts to reduce the
wasteful and/or not necessarily necessary consequences of
expanding, more affluent populations in a consumer driven global
economy, I remain to be convinced how genuine and/or effective
these efforts really are.
Especially when there's big money to be made dealing in green
as opposed to simply living it.
I just hope that you are right in the hope expressed in your second para.
Just reading the rest of the piece it struck me just how many of the
green elite 'ambassadors' already on board seemed to think nothing
of flying hither and thither in the name of saving the planet...
with it all being hunky-dory so long, one presumes, as it is 'offset'.
As someone who only cares about genuine efforts to reduce the
wasteful and/or not necessarily necessary consequences of
expanding, more affluent populations in a consumer driven global
economy, I remain to be convinced how genuine and/or effective
these efforts really are.
Especially when there's big money to be made dealing in green
as opposed to simply living it.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Now I see why we must stop 4x4s at all costs!
Carbon emissions from power stations soar
Ironically, right next door...
Government to unveil greener cars plan
Right hand, meet left.
BBC - Emissions soar from UK generators
Ironically, right next door...
Government to unveil greener cars plan
Right hand, meet left.
BBC - Emissions soar from UK generators
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Word from above
Let the free market fight climate change
'There is potential merit in much that is advocated here. However, as a country-dweller of modest means I can only hope that whichever administration finds itself tasked with resolving what is a very complex long term problem, it can find itself able to do so from more than the perspective of a London C (for centric) - zone urban elite who can afford to indulge in symbolic practices. Or, worse, have mates in high places who don't see cutting back as the way to adequately dispose of their salaries.
At the end of the day, if we accept that a reduction of emissions is the prime objective, and an increase in efficiencies a valid route to this, the only acceptable routes are via establishing genuine enviROIs. It's one thing to practice, or impose, some green 'measure' even if there is a financial cost, quite another if it does not even end up helping the planet either.
Hence my doubts on current carbcon trading proposals, which seem more focused on allowing things (and commissions for 'handling') to continue than any reductions at commercial or personal levels for those who can afford to pay.
While I have no problem with the notion of wealth creation ('Where there's muck...' 'n all), I really would advocate that in looking to the future it may help to realise that money... isn't everything.'
'There is potential merit in much that is advocated here. However, as a country-dweller of modest means I can only hope that whichever administration finds itself tasked with resolving what is a very complex long term problem, it can find itself able to do so from more than the perspective of a London C (for centric) - zone urban elite who can afford to indulge in symbolic practices. Or, worse, have mates in high places who don't see cutting back as the way to adequately dispose of their salaries.
At the end of the day, if we accept that a reduction of emissions is the prime objective, and an increase in efficiencies a valid route to this, the only acceptable routes are via establishing genuine enviROIs. It's one thing to practice, or impose, some green 'measure' even if there is a financial cost, quite another if it does not even end up helping the planet either.
Hence my doubts on current carbcon trading proposals, which seem more focused on allowing things (and commissions for 'handling') to continue than any reductions at commercial or personal levels for those who can afford to pay.
While I have no problem with the notion of wealth creation ('Where there's muck...' 'n all), I really would advocate that in looking to the future it may help to realise that money... isn't everything.'
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
The Nelson Touch..
..a patch from a more jaundiced eye?
Brit's Eye View: U.K. climate politics heating up
It is worth remembering that, like many cultures, there are always a few alternative ways something can get taken, depending on the point you are looking from.
In the UK, it often seems there is what happens in the corridors of power and the surrounding London C-zone (in London the C is for congestion charge, but some may say it could also stand for ‘centric’, the way the city’s young, non-parent, tube, bus and flat-road blessed cyclopaths seem to view things) that takes in the media and urban luvvies.... and the rest of the country.
For sure, the environment is BIG. Certainly in government - we just had another budget where they stuck it to those 4x4s again, which will really make a difference to those in the City earning a bazzillion trading carbon credits when it comes to the annual upgrade to a wind-powered Cayenne, but may make it a bit harder in countryside where folk are still running 30 year old Land Rovers. Remind me again, how much of a car’s carbon is in manufacture?
Glad the EU is agreeing to stuff anyway. Well, the leaders are not agreeing to very much they are asking the rest of us to do, if Mr. Baroso's defence of his Touareg is anything to go by. And our dear leader, and equally dear leader of HM’s Opposition seem to have a small problem with the whole not flying thing if it applies to making THEIR lives nicer, easier and/or more profitable. Like the rest of us were doing it, especially on business, because we just love sucking up the bird flu from row 22.
And as to targets, we have enough for even an NRA Glee Club to go ape over. Hitting them... not so good. But we got ‘em. Squillions! And even more folk to assess, measure, interpret, committee, file, report, fine, explain, excuse, fly to Bali to discuss and all round not do very much but add to the demands on the public purse to keep a load of folk in green-gold until Armageddon.
Now I don’t want to get into a ‘Big Oil denier/Eco-Nazi who said what and is funded by whom’ quote-fest, but I would like to know who the ‘most commentators’ were who welcomed this package. ‘Cos I don’t recall it being quite as all round rosy and unequivocal as that. At least outside the C-zone, and even a few media guys from within that seemed a little less than impressed with how recognition of a need ever seems to turn into effective action.
Yes, stuff needs doing. And to ensure it gets done right, what it is needs to be agreed. Sadly, and it pains me to say this, this does necessitate some KPIs, but here is where think-tanks, government, eco-activists, business, the media, the public and real life may start to diverge.
Me, I just want what’s best for my kids and their kids, so all I really care about is the enviROI, the return that the planet gets on any efforts made to reduce man’s impact upon it (if indeed there is any, or whether it is necessary or not to mitigate a possible natural influence... or not). Been there. Got the blog-flames and a nifty hemp T-shirt that says “Make sure your footprint isn’t a CarbCon one’.
Chancellor Gordon Brown, who MAY be Prime Minister from June unless I have missed something, does have a fondness for decrees. Not so popular with the British public though, such things. And as pointed out, there is theory and there is practice, and who is in office and who is not. Plus who has retired with a nice index-linked, gold-plated pension, and who is mopping up afterwards.
Unless I was only reading subversive underground literature, Enviro Minister David Miliband’s floated ideas on personal carbon allowances were more of the lead balloon variety, being meant for no more than a toe dip and not exactly floated very high at all. And the guns seemed pretty well out for it even with the wee outing it did have.
A bit like those punted by David Cameron, the Conservative leader and, possibly, next leader of the land if the current polls are anything to go by. Both see carbon allowances and trading as a wheeze, and it is easy to see how they would appeal to those with mates in London, and being immune from the consequences of their actions ’because they are busy and important’. Just ask how the old road pricing went down. No problem in London. Not so great where folk have 50 mile round trips daily in the provinces.
I am also unclear as to how the science is getting... any clearer. The IPCC report rated two days in the broadsheets and barely got a mention in the tabloids. A few niche TV media had a stab. Then along came the Channel 4 documentary (mentioned in these pages), and fewer people think climate is an issue than did before. And that wasn’t many. Most think it’s a big con to squeeze taxes in the name of green to prop up runaway public spending and ministerial pensions and pointless campaigns from overfunded comms budgets.
If big companies are getting serious, it’s only because they don’t like the look of the fines coming, or see money in the marketing. Major retailers like Tescos are struggling to explain how a wind-turbine on a trial store’s roof makes up for concreting over most of the country with car parks to sell Spanish strawberries in foam packs. Especially as the former will boost profits anyway. Meanwhile Richard Branson is still spinning how sending billionaires up on a column of greenhouse gasses for their own inter-stellar Kodak moment is offset by his air fleet not yet being on biodiesel. And Stuart Rose of M&S has ordered a hydrogen-powered Beemer which will need a truck to follow it with refills. Bless.
Speaking of which, and competition between political parties, it was Mr. Cameron who rather famously cycled to work with his lunchbox following behind in a hybrid Lexus. But at least his wind turbine went up today. I have posed a question online as to its actual enviROI during its lifespan. While I see no problem with forking out extra cash to save the planet, I do have one with churning out superficial guff that will do no such thing. And the spin vs. action surrounding that inner-city propeller blade makes for a worthy metaphor on what we are facing.
I have long been in favour of allowances, but simply can’t see how they are to be managed. Who gets one tax–free flight? Me? Madonna and Guy? What about every Kalahari bushman and Mekong Delta boat lady who didn’t even know they were part of the global reckoning. Or... aren’t they? Is it just for rich folk to trade with each other? Because if 6 billion get one free flight I’d say Ryan Air shares will go ballistic. And the planet will fry in a fortnight.
There’s debate all right. Maybe it’s me, but from deniers and e-fascists on climate change, to politicians trying to score cheap, non-binding e-points, it all seems pretty ineffective stuff. And if it’s passing me by when I care as much as I do, I think it all needs to get a bit more relevant to the rest of the UK population sooner rather than later.
And on the day we see a bunch more taxes go up in the budget, with little to show for it than more beancounters with clipboards, those who are in power, and those in un-elected Quangos doing very nicely from their profligate, unaccountable spending, would do well to remember the people still have a vote.
At least for now.
Nope, still can't see any ships on the horizon quite yet.
ADDENDUM:
Phew. And I thought no one read... or cared... about Little Britain (now a Virgin Atlantic campaign being run in New York under the guise of 'a local initiative'. Go get 'em, Ricardo!).
Heathrow scramble starts as EU agrees historic 'open skies' deal - http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article2383920.ece
'European transport ministers took the historic step of approving an open skies pact to liberalise the transatlantic airline market yesterday, triggering a scramble to launch new services from Heathrow to major US cities' - weeeee, more planes! That will help.
Budget 07: mean not green - http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/john_sauven/2007/03/budget_07_mean_not_green_.html - 'The reintroduction of the fuel escalator was the chancellor's only real concession to the environment lobby.' - so, not so green from HMG's next PM then.
Green groups warn of backlash against Budget - http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2377703.ece - kind of does what it says on the tin
'You can't change world by wearing sandals' - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/17/noleary17.xml - Luckily, the heads of EU government feel his pain
I'd go on, but then Mr. cc would mock me for my awesome length, and I am feeling Friday fragile.
It would still be nice to get an answer to my question, though:)
I'd like to understand how this CarbCon trading thing works.
No, really.
Brit's Eye View: U.K. climate politics heating up
It is worth remembering that, like many cultures, there are always a few alternative ways something can get taken, depending on the point you are looking from.
In the UK, it often seems there is what happens in the corridors of power and the surrounding London C-zone (in London the C is for congestion charge, but some may say it could also stand for ‘centric’, the way the city’s young, non-parent, tube, bus and flat-road blessed cyclopaths seem to view things) that takes in the media and urban luvvies.... and the rest of the country.
For sure, the environment is BIG. Certainly in government - we just had another budget where they stuck it to those 4x4s again, which will really make a difference to those in the City earning a bazzillion trading carbon credits when it comes to the annual upgrade to a wind-powered Cayenne, but may make it a bit harder in countryside where folk are still running 30 year old Land Rovers. Remind me again, how much of a car’s carbon is in manufacture?
Glad the EU is agreeing to stuff anyway. Well, the leaders are not agreeing to very much they are asking the rest of us to do, if Mr. Baroso's defence of his Touareg is anything to go by. And our dear leader, and equally dear leader of HM’s Opposition seem to have a small problem with the whole not flying thing if it applies to making THEIR lives nicer, easier and/or more profitable. Like the rest of us were doing it, especially on business, because we just love sucking up the bird flu from row 22.
And as to targets, we have enough for even an NRA Glee Club to go ape over. Hitting them... not so good. But we got ‘em. Squillions! And even more folk to assess, measure, interpret, committee, file, report, fine, explain, excuse, fly to Bali to discuss and all round not do very much but add to the demands on the public purse to keep a load of folk in green-gold until Armageddon.
Now I don’t want to get into a ‘Big Oil denier/Eco-Nazi who said what and is funded by whom’ quote-fest, but I would like to know who the ‘most commentators’ were who welcomed this package. ‘Cos I don’t recall it being quite as all round rosy and unequivocal as that. At least outside the C-zone, and even a few media guys from within that seemed a little less than impressed with how recognition of a need ever seems to turn into effective action.
Yes, stuff needs doing. And to ensure it gets done right, what it is needs to be agreed. Sadly, and it pains me to say this, this does necessitate some KPIs, but here is where think-tanks, government, eco-activists, business, the media, the public and real life may start to diverge.
Me, I just want what’s best for my kids and their kids, so all I really care about is the enviROI, the return that the planet gets on any efforts made to reduce man’s impact upon it (if indeed there is any, or whether it is necessary or not to mitigate a possible natural influence... or not). Been there. Got the blog-flames and a nifty hemp T-shirt that says “Make sure your footprint isn’t a CarbCon one’.
Chancellor Gordon Brown, who MAY be Prime Minister from June unless I have missed something, does have a fondness for decrees. Not so popular with the British public though, such things. And as pointed out, there is theory and there is practice, and who is in office and who is not. Plus who has retired with a nice index-linked, gold-plated pension, and who is mopping up afterwards.
Unless I was only reading subversive underground literature, Enviro Minister David Miliband’s floated ideas on personal carbon allowances were more of the lead balloon variety, being meant for no more than a toe dip and not exactly floated very high at all. And the guns seemed pretty well out for it even with the wee outing it did have.
A bit like those punted by David Cameron, the Conservative leader and, possibly, next leader of the land if the current polls are anything to go by. Both see carbon allowances and trading as a wheeze, and it is easy to see how they would appeal to those with mates in London, and being immune from the consequences of their actions ’because they are busy and important’. Just ask how the old road pricing went down. No problem in London. Not so great where folk have 50 mile round trips daily in the provinces.
I am also unclear as to how the science is getting... any clearer. The IPCC report rated two days in the broadsheets and barely got a mention in the tabloids. A few niche TV media had a stab. Then along came the Channel 4 documentary (mentioned in these pages), and fewer people think climate is an issue than did before. And that wasn’t many. Most think it’s a big con to squeeze taxes in the name of green to prop up runaway public spending and ministerial pensions and pointless campaigns from overfunded comms budgets.
If big companies are getting serious, it’s only because they don’t like the look of the fines coming, or see money in the marketing. Major retailers like Tescos are struggling to explain how a wind-turbine on a trial store’s roof makes up for concreting over most of the country with car parks to sell Spanish strawberries in foam packs. Especially as the former will boost profits anyway. Meanwhile Richard Branson is still spinning how sending billionaires up on a column of greenhouse gasses for their own inter-stellar Kodak moment is offset by his air fleet not yet being on biodiesel. And Stuart Rose of M&S has ordered a hydrogen-powered Beemer which will need a truck to follow it with refills. Bless.
Speaking of which, and competition between political parties, it was Mr. Cameron who rather famously cycled to work with his lunchbox following behind in a hybrid Lexus. But at least his wind turbine went up today. I have posed a question online as to its actual enviROI during its lifespan. While I see no problem with forking out extra cash to save the planet, I do have one with churning out superficial guff that will do no such thing. And the spin vs. action surrounding that inner-city propeller blade makes for a worthy metaphor on what we are facing.
I have long been in favour of allowances, but simply can’t see how they are to be managed. Who gets one tax–free flight? Me? Madonna and Guy? What about every Kalahari bushman and Mekong Delta boat lady who didn’t even know they were part of the global reckoning. Or... aren’t they? Is it just for rich folk to trade with each other? Because if 6 billion get one free flight I’d say Ryan Air shares will go ballistic. And the planet will fry in a fortnight.
There’s debate all right. Maybe it’s me, but from deniers and e-fascists on climate change, to politicians trying to score cheap, non-binding e-points, it all seems pretty ineffective stuff. And if it’s passing me by when I care as much as I do, I think it all needs to get a bit more relevant to the rest of the UK population sooner rather than later.
And on the day we see a bunch more taxes go up in the budget, with little to show for it than more beancounters with clipboards, those who are in power, and those in un-elected Quangos doing very nicely from their profligate, unaccountable spending, would do well to remember the people still have a vote.
At least for now.
Nope, still can't see any ships on the horizon quite yet.
ADDENDUM:
Phew. And I thought no one read... or cared... about Little Britain (now a Virgin Atlantic campaign being run in New York under the guise of 'a local initiative'. Go get 'em, Ricardo!).
Heathrow scramble starts as EU agrees historic 'open skies' deal - http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article2383920.ece
'European transport ministers took the historic step of approving an open skies pact to liberalise the transatlantic airline market yesterday, triggering a scramble to launch new services from Heathrow to major US cities' - weeeee, more planes! That will help.
Budget 07: mean not green - http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/john_sauven/2007/03/budget_07_mean_not_green_.html - 'The reintroduction of the fuel escalator was the chancellor's only real concession to the environment lobby.' - so, not so green from HMG's next PM then.
Green groups warn of backlash against Budget - http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2377703.ece - kind of does what it says on the tin
'You can't change world by wearing sandals' - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/17/noleary17.xml - Luckily, the heads of EU government feel his pain
I'd go on, but then Mr. cc would mock me for my awesome length, and I am feeling Friday fragile.
It would still be nice to get an answer to my question, though:)
I'd like to understand how this CarbCon trading thing works.
No, really.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Carb-con gestion?
They keep popping up, don't they?
'Carbon allowance' plan for drivers
Motorists could find themselves facing a ceiling on the amount of carbon they are allowed to emit...
This would be 'motorists' where, doing what exactly and when?
I look forward to how they spin this one. Can't be any worse than the road pricing effort.... can it?
Indy - Miliband: 'Time for a green industrial revolution'
Times - 'Make car drivers pay for their pollution'
'Carbon allowance' plan for drivers
Motorists could find themselves facing a ceiling on the amount of carbon they are allowed to emit...
This would be 'motorists' where, doing what exactly and when?
I look forward to how they spin this one. Can't be any worse than the road pricing effort.... can it?
Indy - Miliband: 'Time for a green industrial revolution'
Times - 'Make car drivers pay for their pollution'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)