I'm sure that it has been/will be mentioned (I usually get a PR from them on everything), but this is so far how I came by some not insignificant Green political news of note:
Ch4 - GREENS PICK FIRST LEADER
The Greens have elected their first outright leader, after many years getting by with mystifying multiple arrangements. Caroline Lucas MEP.
There were always passionate defences of the old system, but it did seem to have problems. Will be interesting to see how it pans out.
Showing posts with label CAROLINE LUCAS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CAROLINE LUCAS. Show all posts
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Mirror, mirror. Well, Guardian, Guardian.
There's a trendy Volvo TV commercial running at the 'mo.
It's not very good, but does embody well the trend of 'how one looks at things': 'Do you see art... or vandalism?' when referring to graffiti. 'Security... or nanny state?'. That kind of thing.
Which brings me to this press release, and the event to which it refers.
GREEN MEP TO SLATE E.ON ‘GREENWASH’ SPONSORSHIP AT GUARDIAN ENVIRONMENT SUMMIT
Green MEP for the South East Dr Caroline Lucas will use her speaking time at
tomorrow’s Guardian Climate Change Summit to slate energy giant E.ON's
sponsorship of the high profile event promoting responsible environmental
policy.
She commented: “While I welcome the Guardian's efforts to promote private,
public, political and campaign sector debate around climate change, and
accept that commercial backing is necessary in this instance, the decision
to allow a company like E.ON to gain a PR win by sponsoring the summit is
completely misguided.
“E.ON is currently applying for planning permission to build the first new
coal-fired power station in Britain for 30 years at Kingsnorth in Kent. The
new plant would emit more than 7 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere
each year - that's as much C02 as the world's 24 lowest emitting countries
combined - and would potentially keep doing so for 50 years.”
Earlier this month, Dr Lucas was joined by Keith Allott, head of climate
change campaigns at WWF, in writing to the Guardian to ask that E.ON’s
commercial backing be revoked.
She said: “This is not an issue of calling into doubt the Guardian’s
unquestioned reputation for unbiased reporting – I have no doubt that the
Guardian will continue to report on E.ON’s activities without fear or
favour. This is an issue of E.ON associating itself with the Guardian's
summit as a cynical move to try to repair its damaged reputation.
"It's understandable that it should try. What is not understandable is that
the Guardian should connive in its attempt.”
.
E.ON is the subject of a massive campaign involving a host of environmental
organisations and activist groups. The Environmental Audit Committee, Royal
Society and the Investors Group on Climate Change have also been highly
critical of the UK's preference for coal, as symbolised by Kingsnorth.
Dr Lucas will take part in an organised protest against E.ON’s involvement
in the Guardian Climate Change Summit on the morning of the event. She will
join members of the activist group Greenwash Guerillas outside London’s
Business Design Centre to highlight the company’s crimes against the
climate.
The longstanding Green campaigner will also speak on the need to forge ahead
with environmental policy in the current economic climate, as well as
outlining the urgent need to invest in a future of fossil-fuel-free
renewable energy. She will say:
“We are facing a triple crisis – the credit crunch, the climate crisis, and
the crisis of soaring oil prices, underpinned by encroaching peak oil. Some
say that we cannot afford environmental measures. But it is precisely at a
time of economic difficulty that strong measures to reduce our crippling
dependence on fossil fuels are needed most.
“What we need is a Green New Deal: a massive investment in energy
efficiency, renewable energy and wider environmental transformation in the
UK, could lead to the creation of thousands of new green collar jobs,
addressing all three aspects of the crisis at the same time.”
Those with long memories will recall I once attended this conference, having railed in this blog about the exclusivity created by the cost of attending. And I was 'rescued' to become part of the machine by the kind support of a Tesco Director who was speaking, and invited me as his guest.
He actually did pretty well, but the main sponsor, Shell, copped it as is e.on this time, as I recall. And I wonder if Boris will be there as was Ken before?
Thing is, to what extent should, or can you critique, when the needs of your job (money, publicity, etc) pretty much suck you in to being part of the very thing you are criticising, or taking others to task for being part of.
I think it is cute indeed that e.on are the main sponsors, and that The Guardian see no problem taking their money to confer a green hue upon them with all the attendant 'it's helping the climate' hoopla, but then Ms. Lucas is there too. Even if she is using it as a means to bash her hosts from within. Interesting to post the strategy in advance.
It's not very good, but does embody well the trend of 'how one looks at things': 'Do you see art... or vandalism?' when referring to graffiti. 'Security... or nanny state?'. That kind of thing.
Which brings me to this press release, and the event to which it refers.
GREEN MEP TO SLATE E.ON ‘GREENWASH’ SPONSORSHIP AT GUARDIAN ENVIRONMENT SUMMIT
Green MEP for the South East Dr Caroline Lucas will use her speaking time at
tomorrow’s Guardian Climate Change Summit to slate energy giant E.ON's
sponsorship of the high profile event promoting responsible environmental
policy.
She commented: “While I welcome the Guardian's efforts to promote private,
public, political and campaign sector debate around climate change, and
accept that commercial backing is necessary in this instance, the decision
to allow a company like E.ON to gain a PR win by sponsoring the summit is
completely misguided.
“E.ON is currently applying for planning permission to build the first new
coal-fired power station in Britain for 30 years at Kingsnorth in Kent. The
new plant would emit more than 7 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere
each year - that's as much C02 as the world's 24 lowest emitting countries
combined - and would potentially keep doing so for 50 years.”
Earlier this month, Dr Lucas was joined by Keith Allott, head of climate
change campaigns at WWF, in writing to the Guardian to ask that E.ON’s
commercial backing be revoked.
She said: “This is not an issue of calling into doubt the Guardian’s
unquestioned reputation for unbiased reporting – I have no doubt that the
Guardian will continue to report on E.ON’s activities without fear or
favour. This is an issue of E.ON associating itself with the Guardian's
summit as a cynical move to try to repair its damaged reputation.
"It's understandable that it should try. What is not understandable is that
the Guardian should connive in its attempt.”
.
E.ON is the subject of a massive campaign involving a host of environmental
organisations and activist groups. The Environmental Audit Committee, Royal
Society and the Investors Group on Climate Change have also been highly
critical of the UK's preference for coal, as symbolised by Kingsnorth.
Dr Lucas will take part in an organised protest against E.ON’s involvement
in the Guardian Climate Change Summit on the morning of the event. She will
join members of the activist group Greenwash Guerillas outside London’s
Business Design Centre to highlight the company’s crimes against the
climate.
The longstanding Green campaigner will also speak on the need to forge ahead
with environmental policy in the current economic climate, as well as
outlining the urgent need to invest in a future of fossil-fuel-free
renewable energy. She will say:
“We are facing a triple crisis – the credit crunch, the climate crisis, and
the crisis of soaring oil prices, underpinned by encroaching peak oil. Some
say that we cannot afford environmental measures. But it is precisely at a
time of economic difficulty that strong measures to reduce our crippling
dependence on fossil fuels are needed most.
“What we need is a Green New Deal: a massive investment in energy
efficiency, renewable energy and wider environmental transformation in the
UK, could lead to the creation of thousands of new green collar jobs,
addressing all three aspects of the crisis at the same time.”
Those with long memories will recall I once attended this conference, having railed in this blog about the exclusivity created by the cost of attending. And I was 'rescued' to become part of the machine by the kind support of a Tesco Director who was speaking, and invited me as his guest.
He actually did pretty well, but the main sponsor, Shell, copped it as is e.on this time, as I recall. And I wonder if Boris will be there as was Ken before?
Thing is, to what extent should, or can you critique, when the needs of your job (money, publicity, etc) pretty much suck you in to being part of the very thing you are criticising, or taking others to task for being part of.
I think it is cute indeed that e.on are the main sponsors, and that The Guardian see no problem taking their money to confer a green hue upon them with all the attendant 'it's helping the climate' hoopla, but then Ms. Lucas is there too. Even if she is using it as a means to bash her hosts from within. Interesting to post the strategy in advance.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
NEWS/GO3 PR - Pocket battles
A PR last night from the Green (Party) Machine (London) has strirred a musing in me. Let me share it here as supplied, but I do propose to comment:
ABOLISH ROAD TAX AND CHARGE THE POLLUTERS, DARLING
The Green Party's Principal Speaker, Caroline Lucas MEP has today
urged the government to reward responsible motorists by abolishing
the Road Tax, and shifting the responsibility onto gas-guzzlers
through the fuel duty. The call comes as road lobbyists meet with the
Chancellor to plead for a smaller increase in fuel tax.
Dr Lucas said:
"The flat road tax on vehicle ownership takes no account of road
usage, and provides no incentive or reward for making less polluting
travel choices. A far fairer alternative would be to scrap it and move
the responsibility onto fuel tax.
"But today we see the road lobby arguing against this fairer measure.
The AA has consistently argued for more roadbuilding, more traffic,
more pollution. They have attempted to block every effort to reduce
our dependency on petrol. Now the price has inevitably risen, and
they want the rest of us to pay for it through our taxes, or in cuts
to services.
"Most car owners would like to take more public transport, but some
lobbyists seem determined to make it as hard for them as possible.
Does Alasdair Darling have the guts to stand up to them?"
At first blush, what is not to agree with? Polluter pays. Simple.
Thing is, this is issued by a self-evidently London-centric source (not suprisingly, as their candidate is gunning for mayor. Which, by the way, I was totally unaware of, for which the major media might be asked why. It's the Boris & Ken show, with Hugh coming in on occasion. No one else gets a peep). But to the best of my interpretation, this call refers to a national issue.
And there be the rub. And it's our old chum again. The politics of the pocket. Or Eco(nomics) vs. Eco(logy).
In London, you don't really need a car, especially to do your job. Distances are shorter. Cycling is an option. Tubes and trains and busses abound. So the Prius is really just to get the luvs to cello practice without paying the congestion charge.
But elsewhere you might need to drop a few hundred miles a week in your Fiesta just to earn a crust.
So what seems so simple need not necessarily be so... or certainly fair. It's a tricky balance, but whoever starts trying to do it properly will get my vote. Make that whenever...
ABOLISH ROAD TAX AND CHARGE THE POLLUTERS, DARLING
The Green Party's Principal Speaker, Caroline Lucas MEP has today
urged the government to reward responsible motorists by abolishing
the Road Tax, and shifting the responsibility onto gas-guzzlers
through the fuel duty. The call comes as road lobbyists meet with the
Chancellor to plead for a smaller increase in fuel tax.
Dr Lucas said:
"The flat road tax on vehicle ownership takes no account of road
usage, and provides no incentive or reward for making less polluting
travel choices. A far fairer alternative would be to scrap it and move
the responsibility onto fuel tax.
"But today we see the road lobby arguing against this fairer measure.
The AA has consistently argued for more roadbuilding, more traffic,
more pollution. They have attempted to block every effort to reduce
our dependency on petrol. Now the price has inevitably risen, and
they want the rest of us to pay for it through our taxes, or in cuts
to services.
"Most car owners would like to take more public transport, but some
lobbyists seem determined to make it as hard for them as possible.
Does Alasdair Darling have the guts to stand up to them?"
At first blush, what is not to agree with? Polluter pays. Simple.
Thing is, this is issued by a self-evidently London-centric source (not suprisingly, as their candidate is gunning for mayor. Which, by the way, I was totally unaware of, for which the major media might be asked why. It's the Boris & Ken show, with Hugh coming in on occasion. No one else gets a peep). But to the best of my interpretation, this call refers to a national issue.
And there be the rub. And it's our old chum again. The politics of the pocket. Or Eco(nomics) vs. Eco(logy).
In London, you don't really need a car, especially to do your job. Distances are shorter. Cycling is an option. Tubes and trains and busses abound. So the Prius is really just to get the luvs to cello practice without paying the congestion charge.
But elsewhere you might need to drop a few hundred miles a week in your Fiesta just to earn a crust.
So what seems so simple need not necessarily be so... or certainly fair. It's a tricky balance, but whoever starts trying to do it properly will get my vote. Make that whenever...
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
NEWS/GO3 PR - EU LOOKS SET TO FAIL KEY POST-BALI TEST
Next up we have News from the Green Party, which gets it in the GO3 category, but might need to be viewed in a possibly partisan light.
For now, my edit contents itself with a few highlights of the release as provided. I don't necessarily agree with all the ideas flying about, but certainly do recall cocking an eyebrow at the difference between setting targets and actual doing stuff.
So, remind me... how long ago was Bali?
EU LOOKS SET TO FAIL KEY POST-BALI TEST, WARNS GREEN EURO-MP AS COMMISSION FINALLY PREPARES TO UNVEIL POLICY PACKAGE
Green MEP for the South East, Caroline Lucas, has called on the EU to
strengthen its resolve on climate change today, as the European Commission
prepares to present its long-awaited proposals on climate and energy
legislation.
Commenting on the proposals to be announced tomorrow, Dr Lucas said: “The EU
must ensure that it maintains ambition on its climate targets, so that this
new package – which already falls short of what is needed – does not prove
to be full of empty promises.
“In the proposals on emissions trading, Member States have committed to a
30% greenhouse gas reduction by 2020 – the reduction scientists agree is the
minimum necessary – assuming an international agreement is reached. The most
crucial aspect of the Emissions Trading Scheme for meeting the reductions
target is the emissions cap, which must be based on this 30% reduction
target.
“Sadly, the leaked Commission proposals show that the use of CDM/JI and
other external credits will be permitted towards even the 20% unilateral
target. This is in stark contradiction to the Bali decisions where the EU
recognised that keeping climate change to below 2 degrees requires
reductions at the very least in the range of 25-40% for industrialised
countries by 2020. Thus the EC runs thus the risk of rendering the ETS a
toothless instrument.
“At the Bali climate talks, the international community made a commitment to
achieve a comprehensive post-2012 climate agreement by 2009. If such an
agreement is insufficient to prevent unfair environmental dumping to EU
energy-intensive sectors, a climate levy should be introduced with the
revenue invested in a climate adaptation fund - or a requirement to buy EU
emissions allowances corresponding to imports from those sectors (from
countries without reduction commitments for the corresponding sectors)."
Furthermore, Dr Lucas criticised the short-sightedness of Member States on
the fledgling renewables industry and called for stronger legislation which
puts development of renewables at the core of energy policy.
"Member States have been balking at potential renewables targets for some
time now, but expanding renewables is not some punitive means of achieving
climate goals – it is a key means of reducing our dependence on imported
fossil fuels and creating jobs in Europe.
She continued: "Crucially, the target is based on final consumption, so if
you reduce consumption, the target will be easier to meet. Therefore energy
saving and energy efficiency are central to meeting the target."
On the specific EU target for agro-fuels, Dr Lucas concluded:
"The warning signs have been there from the beginning but there is now a
growing consensus among experts, even within the Commission, that agro-fuels
are not a panacea for our climate and energy problems. Worse than that, this
generation of 'biofuels' risks wreaking serious social and environmental
damage without delivering any real emissions reductions.
“The oft-discussed sustainability criteria are very difficult to enforce
and, based on current drafts, would not guarantee any net emissions
reductions in the short-term.
“The exemption from environmental sustainability criteria until 2013 for
biofuels produced by installations that were in operation in January 2008 is
completely unacceptable, as is the proposal that Member States cannot
determine their own broader sustainability criteria. The 10% target for
biofuels (by 2020) is already an anachronism. Member States must scrap it,
and replace their current biofuels policy with a more sustainable
alternative."
For now, my edit contents itself with a few highlights of the release as provided. I don't necessarily agree with all the ideas flying about, but certainly do recall cocking an eyebrow at the difference between setting targets and actual doing stuff.
So, remind me... how long ago was Bali?
EU LOOKS SET TO FAIL KEY POST-BALI TEST, WARNS GREEN EURO-MP AS COMMISSION FINALLY PREPARES TO UNVEIL POLICY PACKAGE
Green MEP for the South East, Caroline Lucas, has called on the EU to
strengthen its resolve on climate change today, as the European Commission
prepares to present its long-awaited proposals on climate and energy
legislation.
Commenting on the proposals to be announced tomorrow, Dr Lucas said: “The EU
must ensure that it maintains ambition on its climate targets, so that this
new package – which already falls short of what is needed – does not prove
to be full of empty promises.
“In the proposals on emissions trading, Member States have committed to a
30% greenhouse gas reduction by 2020 – the reduction scientists agree is the
minimum necessary – assuming an international agreement is reached. The most
crucial aspect of the Emissions Trading Scheme for meeting the reductions
target is the emissions cap, which must be based on this 30% reduction
target.
“Sadly, the leaked Commission proposals show that the use of CDM/JI and
other external credits will be permitted towards even the 20% unilateral
target. This is in stark contradiction to the Bali decisions where the EU
recognised that keeping climate change to below 2 degrees requires
reductions at the very least in the range of 25-40% for industrialised
countries by 2020. Thus the EC runs thus the risk of rendering the ETS a
toothless instrument.
“At the Bali climate talks, the international community made a commitment to
achieve a comprehensive post-2012 climate agreement by 2009. If such an
agreement is insufficient to prevent unfair environmental dumping to EU
energy-intensive sectors, a climate levy should be introduced with the
revenue invested in a climate adaptation fund - or a requirement to buy EU
emissions allowances corresponding to imports from those sectors (from
countries without reduction commitments for the corresponding sectors)."
Furthermore, Dr Lucas criticised the short-sightedness of Member States on
the fledgling renewables industry and called for stronger legislation which
puts development of renewables at the core of energy policy.
"Member States have been balking at potential renewables targets for some
time now, but expanding renewables is not some punitive means of achieving
climate goals – it is a key means of reducing our dependence on imported
fossil fuels and creating jobs in Europe.
She continued: "Crucially, the target is based on final consumption, so if
you reduce consumption, the target will be easier to meet. Therefore energy
saving and energy efficiency are central to meeting the target."
On the specific EU target for agro-fuels, Dr Lucas concluded:
"The warning signs have been there from the beginning but there is now a
growing consensus among experts, even within the Commission, that agro-fuels
are not a panacea for our climate and energy problems. Worse than that, this
generation of 'biofuels' risks wreaking serious social and environmental
damage without delivering any real emissions reductions.
“The oft-discussed sustainability criteria are very difficult to enforce
and, based on current drafts, would not guarantee any net emissions
reductions in the short-term.
“The exemption from environmental sustainability criteria until 2013 for
biofuels produced by installations that were in operation in January 2008 is
completely unacceptable, as is the proposal that Member States cannot
determine their own broader sustainability criteria. The 10% target for
biofuels (by 2020) is already an anachronism. Member States must scrap it,
and replace their current biofuels policy with a more sustainable
alternative."
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.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Getting what you deserve?
This could be deemed a slight case of shooting in the foot if taken one way, but I choose to believe that, having had some measure of award success in certain areas, I can at least make comment without being accused of total sour grapes (especially as, in the case below, I didn't apply - by clean forgetting - more fool me).
In fact I won't comment too much, but let the facts, and others, do it for me.
First up is this from the press office of the Observer Ethical (hold that thought) Awards:
AL GORE, GORDON BROWN AND DAVID CAMERON SHORTLISTED
The shortlist is revealed today for the second Observer ethical awards... The entrants were judged by a combination of reader votes and by a celebrity panel, which included Alastair MacGowan, David James and Emily Eavis. The winners will be announced at an award ceremony in London on June 7.
The Observer ethical awards aim to reward those pioneering a sustainable
future for the country and provide a unique opportunity to recognise and
reward the very best products, innovations and schemes that make living
ethically achievable.
There are some other interesting nominees in my view (look at the supermarkets), but this little lot grabbed my attention:
Politician of the Year
Gordon Brown
Caroline Lucas
David Cameron
Looking at the way the votes were cast, and having a vague understanding of people's motivations, I can sort of see how Mr. Cameron made it through sheer media spin and presence (that is, being on it, an no , in my view, by having any), if not, by any tangible measure why. Caroline Lucas makes sense, but I'd be fascinated to know who outside a pretty small circle have heard of her.
In fact I'm guessing a lot of folk had to scrabble to think of anyone in politics as actually, genuinely 'green' (which, as Ethical Man's travels taught me, is not quite the same as ethical).
But.... Gordon Brown?????!
Let's leave it to Dave of Solarventi:
And as on one hand Gord tells us about promoting eco houses and renewables....
… the other hand reduces grants! See the Indy
Hmn. Worth winning in such company?
In fact I won't comment too much, but let the facts, and others, do it for me.
First up is this from the press office of the Observer Ethical (hold that thought) Awards:
AL GORE, GORDON BROWN AND DAVID CAMERON SHORTLISTED
The shortlist is revealed today for the second Observer ethical awards... The entrants were judged by a combination of reader votes and by a celebrity panel, which included Alastair MacGowan, David James and Emily Eavis. The winners will be announced at an award ceremony in London on June 7.
The Observer ethical awards aim to reward those pioneering a sustainable
future for the country and provide a unique opportunity to recognise and
reward the very best products, innovations and schemes that make living
ethically achievable.
There are some other interesting nominees in my view (look at the supermarkets), but this little lot grabbed my attention:
Politician of the Year
Gordon Brown
Caroline Lucas
David Cameron
Looking at the way the votes were cast, and having a vague understanding of people's motivations, I can sort of see how Mr. Cameron made it through sheer media spin and presence (that is, being on it, an no , in my view, by having any), if not, by any tangible measure why. Caroline Lucas makes sense, but I'd be fascinated to know who outside a pretty small circle have heard of her.
In fact I'm guessing a lot of folk had to scrabble to think of anyone in politics as actually, genuinely 'green' (which, as Ethical Man's travels taught me, is not quite the same as ethical).
But.... Gordon Brown?????!
Let's leave it to Dave of Solarventi:
And as on one hand Gord tells us about promoting eco houses and renewables....
… the other hand reduces grants! See the Indy
Hmn. Worth winning in such company?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)