Am I unethical?

I think I might be.

'Cos I had a few issues with the latest offering from BBC's Ethical Man, as alerted by some less than impressed comments on the main Newsnight blog...

Ethical Man goes down to the woods

Whoa, a lot to digest there, if you'll excuse the mental image, as much ground is covered and over various timelines.

I would also rather wish the intros were changed from 'saving the world from climate change'. This rather paints one into a corner from the off. The climate changes. What is bad is that it might be doing it negatively, and our puny race could yet be a mitigating factor if it is man (person?)-made or, my preference, worsened.

Anyhoo, first up there's the news from Washington and this conference that is dominating the world's headlines.

Not too encouraged that almost immediately we learn that there's no actual progress, as it's more a kind of discussion vs. any actual negotiations, and the key host player is 'hoping for a dialogue' and 'thinks that will happen'. O......k. Good intentions can pave many things.

Then we hit the fact that India and China say all sorts of fluffy things are fine, but the West 'goes' first. Hold that thought.

As I try and chew on our representative saying, in one sentence 'You can't get agreement based on science', and then in one later there's 'a commitment to science'. I have long been concerned about the competencies of our politico-media establishment in this arena, but maybe should be reassured: there now seem to be two sets of sciences. How very Star Trek/Gate.

I have to give Mr. Rowlatt credit for pressing certain points in this interview, especially to provoke the gem that our government’s cabinet ministers don't seem to think they have much influence over the police 'service' and its actions. Novel. Who, in the name of public service accountability, does then?

And then I got a bit lost on the timeline, but I think it was the near present that we headed from Detroit East. Traveling can indeed be difficult, but most journeys can be made anywhere still, though agreed often not so quickly. There's the rub. If you have stuff, or a schedule, compromises need to be made. From families of four with two weeks in Cancun booked, to struggling eco-types needing to get to London for a climate conference (at £500+VAT for the day), to BBC journalists and their crews with a programme to make. Or pols heading with entourages and Caddies in the hold. Tricky when the finger wagging starts if you are not careful... or being hypocritical.

But a full load of activists in a Prius has to be as good as it gets, on a motorway, on a long haul trip... I'm sure. At least once the urban bit kicked in... if they didn't get lost. I am sure a Sat Nav was deemed evil, even if the lofted waving mobiles at the subsequent love in were deemed 'different', somehow. Even those have directions now, surely?

Anyway, these 'agents of change' (a different one to the climate variety, I guess) were a joy to behold, especially to those who had them under their spell. Once 'hope for change' wears off, I am thinking 'You are right and they are wrong' will be a great substitute when dealing with others not as keen on the views held... in a democracy. Words like 'impose' and 'enforce' have a worrying ring as backstop rhetoric vs. popular public delivery, too. And, bearing in mind the theme of this 'journey' another I am not sure I am not keen the UK learning from the US. Ta very much.

Especially when backed by 'Obama's EPA' (the environment’s protection agency not good enough?) and its larger than life leader, Ms. Jackson. A vegetarian, I am sure.

I have to say I then got a bit confused again by who was in government, who was in the quango and who was an activist with time on their hands. And who was paying for who to teach whom to do what against who.

I'll have to check and see if my local tech has civil disobedience on the curriculum, and who is funding any nifty tactics being so shared, such as resisting arrest. Might be handy in Gordon and Barak's new world order that maybe I missed in the BBC's G20 coverage.

Again a good stab at getting yet another senior administration pop star to grapple with consequences, Mr. Rowlatt, but he really didn't seem to be too convincing on the link between higher energy costs and the economic consequences. Not part of the narrative that should be overplayed, I'm guessing. Change...! Hope...! You first...! I'm more equal than you...! So it's really OK I hitch a ride on Al's jet!!!

However it was interesting that, after all this, there is still the small matter of convincing Congress and the Senate. And, I might add, having held that thought from earlier for so long, those nice folk in India and China. But there's just a few billion each that I am sure 12,000 energised 'merican yoof can reach, though I'd say a Prius might struggle with the wet bits and some terrain 'soon2B banned' 4x4s could be more suitable for.

Then, finally, we scoot to the woods. And speaking of what's done naturally, why do slots like this have such terribly faked 'surprise' first meetings? It was set up.. in advance. At the due time a fleet arrived at a remote location in the middle of a forest, at night. I reckon they were alerted.

Actually here was one potentially truly inspiring aspect, though I do have my caveats, especially when pondering eating a curry to provide the raw materials, and washing it down with a beverage, beer, that uses vast litres of water to 'make' it, at least commercially. Not a totally coherent signal.

But then this is a person who has traveled the world to spread the word on his concept, minimizing the impacts of human waste. I am sure the benefits created have many times overcome the cost of such a journey.

I would have liked to learn more about this frankly, and will beaver off thus inspired.... virtually of course (if worrying about the humming servers).

I was especially intrigued that the pathogens are destroyed, what with all this swine flu lark at the moment.

It would be interesting to see how this stacks up against our crumbling Victorian sewage systems in a row of City centre terraces. Though the space required would seem to suggest that wider spaces might be required for it to be really practical. Maybe all those college grads could be prevailed upon to give it a stab in their multi-storey dorms.

I'm guessing interesting, but not too practical for most applications. Again.

Addendum -

I was sent this, related, email:

President Obama is hosting a round of international climate negotiations in Washington DC, gathering the biggest climate emitters to try to kick−start UN talks. But oil companies are flooding the airwaves with advertisements to stop the momentum.

Avaaz.org, the global campaigning group, has filmed an advert spoofing the slick Exxon ads. It's hilarious − you can see it at this link −− check it out:

But I still had/have to reply:

Negative advertising can be effective indeed. Certainly gets you noticed, and often awarded.

But I forged a pretty good ad business, on top of career, by being more concerned on behalf of my clients with the tangible end-benefit a good product could confer to the maximum number of potential consumers.

My clients are now my kids, and their futures. I tend to prefer any money to go into proactive solutions, but being realistic these can complemented by inspiration using a fair amount of creative, honest persuasion, in turn based on information and education rather than out-gunning the other side's messages or buying power. Especially when that latter seems unwinnable if you look at the war chests and resources being deployed.

Without seeing the oil companies' ads it's hard to know what their messages are, or the media schedules to guess the eyeball impact.

But if they are being crass and unsubtle and OTT with the kneejerks, I figure it's going to backfire.

However, leading by example with one right, sold well, can really develop into more rights, and soon overcome a lot of wrongs.

Anyway, they seem to have their $100k already. It will be interesting to see how many slots that gets, when, and how many negotiators are exposed to it at the right time in the best environment. And are then motivated to respond in the desired way to it.

Or just find it has cropped up in the awards in 10 months' time.

You couldn't make it up...REdux

Well, at least one campaigner didn't have to cancel his trip to the protest because of snow.

Gordon Brown: A high-carbon official

Sadly, him having made the trip, it seems his host has. Nasty commute from the Oval Office to the rest of The White House when it's chilly.

Not exactly joined up government, is it?

Reporting - information vs. opinion?

I have usually appreciated Ethical Man... when I learn useful new stuff.

What we've been up to...

But not when I feel an agenda is at play, and the science gets tinkered with.

Merry Japes, eh?

Full load in a car... excellent. Be interesting to see how that equates to other forms of transport when you're off on a protest when you're not off on spring break skiing I guess.

Just wondering, how does a hybrid perform in such cases at high speed over long distances, lugging that battery along?

I guess it can be used for the all the laptops and iPod battery chargers no student would be seen without. Even on an Amish visit.

Pity about the hitch-hiking law (?)... very nanny-state. The rationale will be interesting, and how that gets reported vis a vis other government-imposed efforts 'for our own good'.

Buy pass

Of all the activist groups, I have found Greenpeace to be the most erratic to follow and/or support consistently.

Protest is very much the bedrock of a free society, and they have dealt in this for decades, pretty much always effectively but not, IMHO, always wisely.

As a rule of thumb, I am not in favour of anything that creates risk, breaks laws, incites violence or, and especially, efforts that selectively target and inconvenience poor schmoes just trying to get on with their lives.

With this latter at least, I usually wonder how the perpetrators would feel if their chance and a holiday or somesuch was ruined by a bunch of others who are often a tad selective about what they do and what they aim to stop.

However, smart ways of raising profile that hit the pockets evenly by being more targeted at corporates and governments (it all ends up back in our wallets no matter what, let's not forget) are, when done well, to be admired.

Hence I think the purchase of a parcel of land in the way of the proposed 3rd runway, to be divided into mini-plots, to be very smart.

Not quite so sure on some of the justifications being used (the spokesperson was very inarticulate and hence less than persuasive in soliciting public support on SKY news just now), and again the choice of celebrity messengers (a few of the luvvies being against this seem quite well travelled, and indeed seem more concerned with what was going on over their West London homes than sea levels in the Maldives), but this is one worth following to see how the various protagonists handle it all (I see Mr. Brown in a dithering funk, the business community tying itself in contradictory 'good for the community' knots and the activists getting more radical and losing public sympathy pretty quickly... all per usual).

BBC - Protesters buy up Heathrow land

Plain foot in it?

Top anti-aviation activist secretly FLIES to airport protest in New York

A bit like the bowl of petunias in The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, when this protest first broke, I thought: 'Oh no, here we go again'.

Frankly I think they achieve little more than giving the media a reason to get excited, those not involved breath a sigh of relief to have dodged a bullet, and those who very much are involved to err on being a tad miffed.

I was a little concerned when I heard this latest wheeze explained away by a senior activist (do they have 'ranks' like the military?) on the basis that they'd done a petition, had another protest and so it had become necessary to 'escalate'. Hmn. I wonder if there are any salaries, or at least donation-uses, that require a rather shorter timescale than in the past to satisfy the internal demands more than anything else?

So we come back to my eternal point about the right messengers for the message.

Not sure this has advanced the cause, really. A bit like causing vast disruption to a finely tuned system, which doubtless mainly resulted in many more emissions.

Hope she got some nice gifts in NY. It would have been a shame if the flight had been cancelled for such a critical trip.

Guardian - NEW - Lily savaged - The mouths of babes? A new media darling emerges. I just worry a tad about the allusions to taking things further if 'they' don't get 'their' way.

BBC - NEW - A distant climate - for a buffet of irony

From a blog (unconfirmed), to the news that the group is financed by the Lush founder: 'Yet, there is a Lush store at terminal 3, heathrow'.

Rain stopped play, ironically?

Will you join London's climate march?

Mixed feelings on this one. No, I won't be there, as it's in London. But if any readers are around... I have shared.

Also she rather raises a key point. Versus X-Factor, Strictly Come Dancing and the financial crisis, is calling all to a march, whilst very people power, democratic and all, really going to motivate the masses?

Maybe effort might be better spent emulating these despised icons of modern day life and finding something like them that does get more people to care and enough to join together in making a difference? I also have a slight 'thing' about being 'against' climate change, which really is a rather sloppy rallying call. The climate changes. What is a possible problem is the way 'we' are not helping it do so, in severity and frequency. Such muddled articulations can compromise a lot of goodwill and start pushing into agenda-driven activist territory.

Kinda cute that a poster needs to help a dedicated environmental beat journalist with making more of the whole where and when thing. Almost like she lives in her own little bubble with all her green mates, eh?

One law for the [ ]*

*insert exceptions/interest groups that will not be you here.

I think this op-ed from Ch 4 sums it up best:

We’ve just heard that Greenpeace have won in their legal battle over their protest at the Kingsnorth power station in Kent. They’ve been found not guilty of causing criminal damage in their protest against the coal-fired station. Essentially the Greenpeace argument was that climbing up a chimney and daubing “Gordon” on it was not criminal damage, as it was lawfully right because it was needed to prevent the greater damage caused by the government’s energy policy and resulting carbon emissions. If you like, it was the old argument: you can bash down a door legally, to put out the fire on the other side of it. So where now? Can you go home tonight and chuck paint over the neighbour’s 4x4, to make a case against emissions? Anyone up for super-gluing the gates of the nearest coal-fired power station? I could go on whilst the lawyer is out of the room. But does it actually open any precedent at all? We take a look, hopefully with a lawyer. Precedent is doubtful. Environmentalists have already pulled something similar to this before, damaging GM crops, but beware of wider precedents.

So now, to add to when I go on holiday overseas I can claim I am raising awareness of climate change, I might try spinning some bit of local law-breaking as part of addressing a greater truth, possibly elsewhere. Worth a try, I guess. Always wondered what lay beyond those flood gates.

Guardian - Policy, not protesters, should be on trial

Times - Protesters cleared over damage to power plant

Spectator - Greenwashing A Jury - Not a good few days for jury decisions to some, but also not great to those who then decide they don't like the result. The system was used, and delivered its result. Seesm to me there was a failure by the prosecution to prove their case. Maybe not enough irony-free experts flown over from the USA to further help, um, 'awareness'?

I even had a category ready

This deserves its own gig. More so by being in the Guardian:

Elitist evangelists

I am hard-pressed to figure out what the £30k 'damage' was/is, but 'if you commit the crime, you do the time', etc, I guess.

However, this is one CiF I'll watch from the sidelines.

Telegraph - NEW - Climate change chicanery - The author is a major climate optimist, and hence all written should be viewed in this light but, if true, the point about the function of an expert witness in a legal trial is a good one, and I'd like that question on how two advocates came to be used in this role was allowed.

I'm greener than you... I've screwed up more!

How far will the climate campers go?

Hilarious.

If one thing to me defines the state of things 'environmental', it's that whatever happens*, one bunch will be getting the hump and having a go at another bunch and ending up in a bit of snit.

Which is why I tend to prefer and hence favour associations with those who work quietly, effectively, proactively and tangibly in DOING what they can, where they can, whenever they can to make a tangible, positive difference, and inspire engagement in the general public by the power of their example, empathy and commitment.

But I guess protests and bans do get more media and hence feed systems that depend on 'awareness' (even if communications and getting one's point across are not always a strong suit, evidently) rather more effectively.

*Interestingly, I have noticed a rather concerning trend, at least for the principle of free speech and the spirit of debate. And that's on blogs and forums folk being 'accused' (Witch! Burn... well, give 'em a nasty pallor with a CFL light!) of undermining 'the cause' by disagreeing with the group think du jour.

So careful what you wish for. 'And then they came for the lite greens who did not (want, feel like, see the need to, etc) foreswear their all, and there was no one left to speak...'

Addendum - The Mancunian way - see comment 11:16 to 11.25am.

Gaurdian - NEW - Dirty tactics to defend a dirty industry

Gaurdian - NEW - The stakes could not be higher. Everything hinges on stopping coal - Whilst I might agree that coal needs a serious look at in the mix, I have to say I tend these days to stop at most that starts with 'stopping' (if you get my drift).. at least as a call to action in this regard. Kinda sweet that the first para to such pieces now has to start with a mitigating planet-commitment action... 'Sitting in a teepee eating Fairtrade..', '...boarding a train.'. I wonder how it plays with those sitting at work 9-5, 5 (or more) days a week? No matter how important, and valid, the message, the cred of most self-appointed messengers is really going South.

Newsnight - NEW - Climate change - Ta for the tip, Chlo_F:

One other, worthy aspect of the 'green' debate is how it is running past the general/consuming public from many sources, especially those who see themselves as 'guiding lights'.

Rather topical as the subject of communicating with the great unwashed, er, me... has cropped up of course with the VED, too.

Another from the Guardian - on the topic of medium and messengers - worth a gander:

Here

Meanwhile here's another aspect that seems... pertinent:

I do have to wonder how those who may agree that we are in a pickle (but also may not agree with some aspects as outlined by other advocates) might seek the week off from our day jobs were they not funded in some way by more sympathetic employers. Maybe the relevant minister could be asked for her opinions on our rights to do this on the basis that we are looking after a needy planet?

Meanwhile, I shall now for all due balance pop over to the Times**, Telegraph**, and maybe even such as the News of the World*** (circulation what, and to whom, versus the Guardian readership?) to see how all this is playing there:)

Over the past few months the voters who read such tomes seem to have had an influence it would be silly to (try to) ignore (or, worse, dismiss), eh?

**Nothing so far..

***Shudddrs

Newsnight - ADDENDUM - (had to edit a bit... got carried away)

We are, seemingly, facing a global crisis (the single greatest we face I believe, according to a UN head) based on some predictions that point to our growing numbers and what each one of us needs (heat, stuff, travel) and likes (more stuff & more travel), that inevitably lead to the generation of emissions and... consequences (I do note that some views as to man’s relative contribution, or not, have not been included in this particular debate, which is hence taking this as a given, which in turn some might feel a slight omission given the weight public opinion and hence political action that can and should hold sway in such matters, but oh, well).

Thanks to some interesting PR surrounding a protest at a power facility, an aspect of this topic has again come to the fore for a brief flurry under the sun before we worry about JP’s undies again.

In yesterday’s blog preamble, I wondered how all this was playing with the various options we, the public, get our information from.

Well, certainly some mention in such as The Independent and Guardian for print, and on broadcast news the BBC.

However, not a lot I could glean from many other places, including anything much originating from our government. There’s a surprise.

So I turn to a late night news programme in the hope of some objectivity to help me learn the issues, to help me shape an option should I ever be asked to vote sensibly on the directions we take (assuming voting is still in fashion in the near future – I do notice that these days the majority not voting the ‘right’ way can get frowned upon, and to quite extensive coverage in some places, by minority commentators who seem to think, and are often accepted by the bookers who give them airtime, as ‘knowing better’).

And what, or rather who do I find? An ‘environmental activist’ of questionable qualifications (‘Leading’? By what measure and whose agreement?), who seems to have carved a career by writing provocative articles in a very minor broadsheet, who seems to be saying ‘Oh heck, anything but coal.. let’s go nuke, then’. Words, if loose, that are deemed (again, er.. why and by whom) to have sent ripples throughout, well, parts of North London at least.

I’m not sure, but I have this small notion that the issue is not that simple. And spans not just the choices we face on energy, but also economic vs. environmental balances, geo-political considerations, immigration, population and a host of other stuff I really don’t envy those staked with unraveling this Gordian knot (and not Gordon, for sure).

But a group have decided they don’t fancy an aspect, and so we get a ratings punt by a broadcast medium using a media-friendly person’s dubious pontifications as a basis, or more like bedrock for a whole discussion. Does the BBC not have anyone of relevance to add to this critical discussion at the level one would expect from a premier news programme? Or is the speed dial restricted to the half-dozen usual suspects who write for the Guardian and live in the mews next door when not in their country cottage? I have no problem with opinions from all walks, but surely they need to be balanced (and not a blooming classic ‘two/threefer wheeling out extremes from far sides... a nuke industry spokesperson for heaven’s sake, but billed – I need to find from fellow posters - as a ‘former energy minister’. No wonder the whole thing is a farce and trust in media and government is out the window). And can we not get some objective science and engineering FACTS in the mix? Possibly a bit of rational economic pragmatism and/or political realism too?

Beyond the beliefs, not all of us obviously have the financial ability to scoot hither and thither looking for the next ban or protest, so when it comes to how we heat our homes and other factors self interest may guide us. And this is, very possible short-term thinking. So I was stuck by the comment ‘There largely to protest’, that rather sums up how many may come to view these efforts, when rarely is there much by way of viable alternatives presented (though I think I did glean a few halfway sensible tilts towards efficiency gains). ‘Ruining my day’ vs. ‘status quo’. Tough call.

So what’s going to get me, or my kids’ kids first? A C02 (man-caused/worsened or not still a little up in the air, ‘scuse pun) dawn, or a nuclear one (Space 1999 style)?

So far, I have no blooming clue, and nothing sensible to help try and figure it out. Certainly not when it is ignored or treated piecemeal and often in a contradictory manner by the majority of most read (and watched) media, or served up in such a daft fashion by the minority of the rest.

I am not at all keen in playing the person and not the argument, but we really do need more sense of objectivity, and ‘opinion former’s’ backgrounds do become very pertinent... What stance they are taking? Where are they getting their money from? A book deal? A lobby group? Quango target bonus? An activist board salary/pension? The message can often end up being very coloured by the messengers, especially self-proclaimed ones deemed ‘expert’. Is there anyone left who is not in someone’s pocket? Including the media? Jonathan Porritt seemed the only halfway rational person in the whole lot. Maybe he did have alternatives to mitigate the pain of mitigation, but I didn’t catch many.

I see James Lovelock mentioned. As with a few others in this Heat’ed debate, I am afraid the more I see his opinion in an article with ‘his new book is published.. at £16.95 by [coincidental news media publishing arm]’ at the end, the less I feel inclined to read on without a very cranked eyebrow.

Especially when I also read ‘his opinion is that CO2 is far more lethal than compact bunkers of nuclear waste’ not so long after I find he may be one of the first passengers atop a column of greenhouse gasses on the Virgin orbital gawping (rich) tourist shuttle.

http://junkk.blogspot.com/2008/07/what-goes-up.html

Maybe this thing is ‘the future’, but if we are talking about emissions now, exhaust smoke on a jolly seems a contradictory, if not smoke and mirrors foundation upon which to base one’s argument.

Do I like the idea of coal (especially without any viable CCS) as proposed? No. But do I like the idea of nuclear much better, especially as many key aspects seem still unresolved... disposal, ROI, enviROI, etc). No, not yet.

But I see how delay can be viewed as frustrating. However the way the issues are portrayed certainly don’t help... well, me at least. ‘The environmental movement is split’ I heard the reporter say, well, challenge at one stage, doubtless for a provocative response. What the heck IS ‘the environmental movement’. It seems a rather odd, artificial construct almost designed to create a ‘them’ vs. others quality that can help nobody, and especially the quality of discussion.

Stop giving sound bite airtime on a hobby horse basis. If it is as serious as has been suggested, treat it seriously and get a decent spread of sensible views who can at least explain where we currently are rationally. It has to be better than the sensationalist spinning that passes for news I see in this arena, and I’m frankly fed up with it.

Gaurdian - NEW - Kingsnorth protester diary: Come to the camp - Working as planned, is it?

The value of protest

Worth a read for the justification... and the replies (in the Guardian).

The sticky issue of climate change

An interesting insight into the causes, and effects.

Actually, having read his (rather long) manifesto, I have some sympathy.

I am also intrigued that in this day and age that such an assault (actually battery) on a major public figure is possible. I seem to recall in an early '24' the President character was attacked via hand borne nasties.

Everyone has a right to protest ....

.... at something that they disagree with; and (my caveat) providing it is peaceful and sensibly done. But yet again, we have total and utter madness reported as a climate change group hijack a train delivering coal to Drax power station. Full story is from the Guardian.

Sorry, but this is on a par with the animal liberation people freeing thousands of mink a few years ago. These caused absolute devastation to the wildlife within 20 or so miles of the mink farms.

To the people in this Climate Change Action group - I'm all for raising awareness of climate change, but if you want to make a point, make it fairly, sensibly and politely; actions such as hijacking trains make you look like nothing less than outlaws, lunatics and complete idiots. All you will do is alienate yourselves from the man in the street. Go get a life!

Guardian - Addendum (JM) - Is hijacking a train the right tactic? - Methinks some protest to much, and actually get active in more productive ways too little.

Indy - Addendum 2 (JM) - Climate campaigners threaten to invade and shut down power plant - 'Green activists are vowing to force their way...'