Links. Rechts. Vee ver only obeying targets!

Does the left hand know what the right is doing?

Now there's a question. I'm going for 'in your wildest dreams'.

We know that the Government is perfectly capable of dropping targets when they become inconvenient.

Unfortunately, we are still in the realm of ambitious rhetoric, rather than action, from the Government when it comes to climate change.

Ministers are still ducking hard choices that need to be made if we, as a nation, are to face up to the threat of global warming.

I'm also goingh with Janet Street Porter, who used not to rate on my radar but is now often a voice of soem insight (if not one I'd like to listen to): Convenience comes at a (very high) price

And as it is sort of related, though more yesterday's news, here's a bit more for the pot.

Not, perhaps the best news for local retailers whose main weapon seems to be the removal of plastic bags in 'a' town (I suspect the removal of same in all towns will not quite have the same PR/'get the punters in' impact, at least past day 1).

Indy - Fury and disbelief greets report's claim that Britain needs more supermarkets

Indy - Supermarkets: Big four off the hook

Many independent retailers have been hoping that an inquiry would eventually result in fewer supermarkets being given planning permission. However, a shake-up of the planning regulations which the commission proposes, could pave the way for more supermarkets to open.

Indy - Jeremy Warner's Outlook: Commission wants more supermarkets

It all rather leaves you wondering whether the whole investigation was not just another monumental waste of money. This is the third Competition Commission investigation of the supermarkets sector in seven years, and all of them have broadly ended up clearing the industry of "rip-off" practices.

Actually, no. Despite some confused thinking around the landbank issue, the findings are on the whole measured and proportionate. Britain's growing population means that there is a real need for more supermarkets, regardless of the competition issues. The planning laws have to be adjusted accordingly.

Guardian - Getting past the checkout is a breeze for Tesco

Gaurdian - The way we shop now

Gaurdian - Reality checkout

I don't know about left and right hands, but my RSI-ridden wrist is shot!

Forget me not

It's not enviro, but I'm posting anyway as it goes to the core of how we are mis-governed - NHS pariahs

Oh, yes, I am angry.

My Mum has mild but deteriorating Alzheimer's. She is also quite comfortable financially. When she was no longer able to manage in her own home we moved her to a cottage next to ours where i could keep an eye on her hourly. It has worked well so far. Yes, there was some official interest (more visits and clipboards than I could count in a short period), but once it was appreciated that she had family looking after her this evaporated. Priorities. Fair enough. And we are grateful for the non means-tested attendance allowance that helps us to look after her more intimate needs via private carer visits.

However soon it may be that her medical needs will require her to go into a home, and while this will be a sad day for all there is really no option. Fortunately she is well prepared for this, and we will ensure that she has the best her money can buy.

So why I am I angry? Because, with the exception of the attendance allowance, thanks to her and my deceased father's prudence and thrift she has been near zero a burden on the state or its coffers. Helped in a small way by her family rallying round.

But when the time comes and she passes on, should she yet be able to leave some funds to ease the personal, familial and national burden of geriatric care for future generations, it first has to run the gamut of IHT so the government can suck out as much as it can to fund useless box-tickers and gold-plated civil service pensions.

And yet in defence of this all I see is smug Brown babes and comfy Islington media luvvies trying to claim it is just to redistribute wealth to prevent rich landed gentry spoiling their heirs.

Where is the incentive to save for your old age and the benefit of others who may play a great part in making its consequences less onerous... for all concerned???!

'Ah did not have relations with them honours'

In light of the words vs. actions of those who would govern us, this is worth sharing: Aha, the getaway map for anyone planning a cash for honours caper

Times - A sharp little piece of honesty getting under Whitehall’s skin

I'm about ready for a 'why don't the public trust us/engage with politics' chestbeat any time soon.

Oh, then there's this: Brown rewards the PC brigade, not the diligent

Gosh, I am sooo glad I'm trying to found my own business using my savings.

Corporal Fraser would be proud, I tell ye... proud!

It's half-time - and we're already 3-0 down

Tricky things, dilemmas.

It cannot have escaped most folks' notice that quite an industry has sprung up around the whole planet saving (from itself) thing.

What I am not so sure is that the balance is right between those doing vs. those talking, especially when it comes to the media talking about those doing the talking.

And it's throwing up a small problem. Facts are nice things to hang a headline on. Especially when they have dates attached.

Trouble is, if you are in the business of persuasion (no matter how sincere), once you commit to one you are kinda bound by the consequence.

So all this 'we're all doomed' stuff is causing me a slight problem. Tell it as it is, or as it might be, and risk the rather obvious deleterious consequence of going past a stated point of no return and hence rather logically acknowledging the point that there is... um... no point trying any more.

Or perhaps simply focus more on all sorts of nifty, proactive, incentive-driven, reward-based ways to get people on aboard with doing better by the planet because they want to and feel like it as opposed to scare stories, guilt-trips, fines, nags and all the other stuff that has worked sooooo well to now. Puts a lot of folk in cushy little numbers plugging those notions, from activists to target-driven pols and quangos to carbon-trading suits to....etc, out of business, but I could live with that at a pinch.

Tricky, eh?

The positives are out there. It's just it doesn't make for a good career in media to report them. So most don't. Yet still get paid well for it.

What's a boy or girl to do?

I bang on a lot about doing here. And will continue to do so.

I have more faith in the benefits of substantive, positive creative activity than an awful lot else waaaaaay too much energy gets expended upon.

But every so often I give pause to ponder the consequences of 'doing'.

No so long ago I debated with myself at length how so much of the human condition that drives one to make stuff might indeed now be what's causing us the problems we are experiencing. There are simply so many of us making so much, the consequences of the processes are having a global effect... possibly.

Makes having a great idea... that needs manufacture... less of a thrill if you are cursed with the thought in the back of your mind that it might just add to the short-term problem. I certainly have a file full of such things. And a few might well feed the family a lot quicker than Junkk.com, I can tell you!

But actually, when it comes to 'doing', at least in this post, I am thinking of the people who don't do that much that's really very 'necessary' or 'useful', and what on earth society would do with them if they are no longer funded (via salaries, etc) to be kept occupied and in chauffeured Priuses or Bali conferences. Tricky.

The pages of government documents and the media and activist websites are full of things to ban. Some worthy of consideration; some vacuous, self-serving rants.

Trouble is, behind almost all is an entire infrastructure of folk who would be, quite simply, out of a job if these things did, in fact' cease to be'.

Take the leisure market. By some estimates, it represents 10% of the world's economy. No more flights would mean 600 million (well, a large % as 'we' returned to our roots. Though the thought of competing with 60M Brits for a campsite slot is not appealing) out of work. And they cannot all become Local government compost advisers or carbon traders.

Woah. Big, connected issues need big, coordinated thinking. Trouble is, I am not seeing any big thinkers on the horizon. At least, any who are not out for No. 1 first and only.

Indy - The ethical dilemma posed by organic food - QED
Guardian- Air-freight food must pass fair trade test to retain organic label in future

Sloppy Science Reporting Alert!

'Air freight by weight can generate 177 times more greenhouse gases than shipping'

What does that mean without any context?

ADDENDUM -

Meanwhile, where the big money is - Olympic consultants cost £1m a week - And they are doing...?

Knowing 'why' may be interesting...

... but in the case of shooting yourself in the foot nowhere near as useful as first not doing it.

Sadly I am on a self-imposed ban from commenting (though I'd get moderated anyway) on a site I still monitor for interesting facts and links. And I saw this:

We all know there’s global warming, it’s ‘why’ that needs an answer. Many scientists, based on research by the Danish Space Center, think it’s down to solar wind activity which reduce cloud cover and increase water vapourisation (clouds account for 95% of the Earth’s greenhouse effect). Just ask Al Gore why polar ice caps are melting on Mars and both Mars and Jupiter are warming up at the same rate as Earth or does he believe there are little green men on Mars belching out CO2.

Too many well paid research, media and political jobs depend on scare mongering findings. Politicians use CO2 as a means of extracting more taxes and the BBC obey their masters.

Here’s my take on the maths ....
CO2 (carbon dioxide) is 0.04% of the Earth’s atmosphere.
97% of all CO2 is natural and 3% of CO2 is man made.
Therefore man made CO2 accounts for 0.0012% of the Earth’s atmosphere.
The UK is responsible for 2% of the world’s man made CO2.
Therefore the UK’s contribution to the world’s man made CO2 emissions is 0.06%.
Therefore a 10% reduction in the UK CO2 emissions = 10% of 2% of 3% of 0.04%.
This equals 0.0000024% reduction in the world’s total emissions of greenhouse gasses.

Compelling stuff (well, Danish Space Centre vs. IPCC... hmnn). Note that the poster is on board with GW. But what I find interesting, and a little scary, is the absolutism of what I am sure is a decimal-perfect academic linear analysis.

No hint that 3% going to four may be a very bad thing in a sensitive system not in natural control (and I accept, thanks to my own eyebrow twitch, that it's hard to ignore that a Krakatoa or Mt. Pinatubo might further tilt the atmospheric nasties, but we're talking avoidable stuff here).

And speaking of avoidable, there's the age-old UK vs. the rest. The prisoner's dilemma.

I see such posts daily. And often they are fed by the latest rather extreme MMGW-pessimistic claims made by those quite high on the official/media tree I would dearly wish were more cautious, as they simply hand the optimists an easy distraction.

Take the forest fires in California. For start, if one accepts it's getting 'warmer' (is it?) a fire seems a fairly likely thing.

But interestingly all culpability claims that have pointed at 'Man' have indeed played the MMGW card. Why just that, when there is still so much to going on to discredit that notion alone!!!!!? What about all the other factors our expanding populations impose? Like sticking houses in front of fires where they used to burn away with no human contact? Or sucking the water out of every place possible to feed golf courses, etc.

There is a very complex thing at work here, and man most likely is not helping, but neither is simply pointing at the sky and shrieking global warming as you whip out your sustainability consultation fee document or recycling target estimates.

ADDENDUM - On the other hand - Science Daily - Massive California Fires Consistent With Climate Change, Experts Say - Experts, eh? One minute you have none, and the next minute a bunch come along and say all sorts of conflicting things.

BBC - Hurricanes and global warming - a link?

Consequences

On another thread, in a blogosphere far, far away, I (well as part of a catch-all pejorative grouping) have been accused of trying to get someone fired.

Suffice to say that, by pitching in and asking some questions (as I tend to do when I get interested in the topic), the failure to answer these adequately has put a professional person/entity on the spot. And such is the unfairness of corporate life, there may be a consequence for those who least deserve it to save the skins who deserve it most.

And it's kinda interesting, as the very same outfit who seem to playing the 'poor person' card to deflect criticism (which really only works against them when it's still their scummy systems that make it work out that way) seem to think nothing of making dirty great big, and often woefully ill-informed, statements that can seriously impact the careers and lives of an awful lot of folk. Without so much as a moment's thought.

What inspired me to this train? This: No Job, No Carbon Footprint

Just check this bald statement: Forget environmental taxes - the coming recession will help sweep away a ton of unnecessary consumption quicker than you can say the words “mass redundancies” and “soaring repossessions.”

Note this also please, especially any who may recall what I have banged on about for, well ever: The only areas of the low carbon emissions market that resemble defensive plays are insulation and draught proofing. While these technologies have a payback period of under 4 years they make few appearances in the Power Point presentations Silicon Valley based alternative energy start ups make to the investment community.

What... saving the planet effectively isn't sexy enough????

Actually, this piece is all about the fallout to those who have decided to make a career in green.

I was thinking more about those in other industries; the kind my boys may want to join. Is wanting to be a pilot a smart call now? Or ski instructor? Just killing the air industry will trash, by some estimates, 10% of the the world's economies that depend on tourism. Where do 600million people go to get the alternative job?

No one said it would be a simple deal, I guess.

I'm just glad my little niche is working with the system to help save the planet and avoid waste... plus, with luck, making a decent career out of it.

So... does that mean I should stop asking questions?

No.. I thought not.

Making Whoopsie

I found myself in an odd, slightly down mood last night. Mainly having watched an eclectic mix of TV (that will do it every time).

First up was the news, with a story on the new Boeing Dreamliner. Pretty much a technological marvel, it will do its job with a lot less impact on the planet than predecessors. Trouble is, a lot of folk were quick to point out, it will probably mean doing pretty much a lot more jobs for the same, slightly less than optimal impact that such craft impose.

Tricky. Certainly better than nothing. For sure a step in the right direction allowing for the fact that flying is a fact of modern consumer life (for now). But... hard to get too excited, especially if... when... we get a bunch of nasty eco-ads telling us how green it is.

Then I watched a Ch5 doco on 'the world's tallest hotel', the Burj al Arab in Dubai. As an ex Civil Engineer, I could only be transfixed as each seemingly impossible construction challenge was identified... and then solved. The sheer creativity and expertise in making something was awesome to behold, and truly envy-making to one who loves to make stuff.

But... even though I was just able to cope with the fact this was little more than a one hour ad for a pretty out-of-my-league section of the hospitality industry, some of the facts of its eco footprint were really hard to ignore, though the programme makers patently did not have this aspect in mind. They were proud that each suite sucks more juice than a small town!

My deep unease at both of these was at the heart of my depression. I have been trained to and am stimulated by making things; have been my whole life. To see something where before there was nothing is a truly great feeling, especially if it is exceptional, and better yet recognised as such.

Yet these two outstanding achievements would now be things I doubt I could feel too proud about being part of, simply because of the impact they have on the future. And it's hard to argue either would be deemed as positive, at least environmentally. And such feelings are almost totally at odds with the natural desire to want to create something new, and/or beautiful and/or useful.

I have boxes full of sketches for things I'd like to try and make real, maybe even make some money out of, but so few could I honestly put my hand on heart and say they would not have an impact on the planet from whose resources they would need to be made, or in being used would not impose a fresh burden.

And that, despite simply being a very small cog in a vast machine that has to expect you gotta do what your gotta do to support a family, is quite difficult to have nagging away in the back of your mind.

I feel the only solution is a version of the Google mantra 'do no harm'. Which is, 'make things better', embracing every aspect of the word. I think such as the RE:tie do that. I'm just hoping there are more ways to tap into our consumer society that can be viable commercially and offer some measure of mitigation.

Hear no evil. See no evil. Certainly don't write about it. And that way many comfy, high paid jobs can enjoy the status quo.

It was ever thus. Probably.

But here I must commit the seemingly terrible, unsporting, and un-British crime of wondering if things are as good as they could be, and seek in the only ways I know to understand why. And, if not as good as is possible, see how they may be improved, through word and, preferably, deed.

A few weeks ago, I wrote to our local paper. We live in a lovely market town, enjoying a lifestyle which most city chums envy like mad. However, one Friday night I was walking my kids home from a club and we had to endure a trip that was something out of a bad post-apocalyptic C-movie. Screaming harridans. Drunken aggression. Roving cars with more spent on the turbo dump than the MOT. It was not pretty. And I thought it needed addressing. So I appealed to those in power, or tasked to assist, but there was no reply.

The next week the banner was taken up by another, who coined the rather colourful phrase 'Beirut in Bloom', and advocated vigilante groups. Now, this seemed a tad in excess of requirements, but certainly this time got a reaction. A lesson learned?

Thing is, the reaction from councillors was pretty much 'don't trash our town by talking it down'. I won't go into the rest, but suffice to say there will be a lot of 'discussing', 'looking at', and 'raising of' during the next voting period with, one suspects, a flurry of 'initiatives' pre-election.

And while it did not figure too highly in the Guardian Climate Change Conference (review well underway, trust me), there was a hint of what I see waaaay too often these days by way of a diversion by those who get called upon to explain the frilly kickers around their ankles.

And this is the time-honoured cry that there should be no criticism, as it doesn't help make things better. To an extent this is true, but there is criticism, and there is criticism.

As our outbound Dear Leader tried, in his best 'am I bovvered?' way, to point out, there can be an extreme whereby it is simply 'damn at any cost, and fire a full salvo of torpedoes as something bad is bound to get hit'. Sadly, for those like me who mostly agreed with him this was rather unproductive, this came from a guy who also kinda, sorta is on a shaky pedestal when it comes to legitimate investigation and commentary. You know, things like being caught in, at best, a failure to deliver on promise or, at worst, a total porkie.

I honestly don't know what to do for the best, but I don't think it's an option to shut up and trust that the system, and those who run it are always competent or indeed often honest enough to be let off without being called to explain, if not account.

So I won't.

Hence I will be asking a few local councillors and the county plod what 'Total tosh" actually means by way of an official reply to charges of failures to police under-age drink sales, anti-social behaviour and potentially dangerous driving.

As I will also continue to do with those in government, local government and associated multi-million £ quangos, when to legitimate questions raised by a lot of savvy folk, I mostly seem to find the reply is "Don't rock the boat, as ... we are 'discussing'/'looking at'/ 'raising' it...'.

Monkey see. Monkey do.

ADDENDUM

I recently wrote a review of the Wiggly Wiggler event, and offered it to the local paper who were more than keen. But some sod has obviously distracted them from this nice, positive piece with more on this issue. And this person seems to have been... me.

Seems that in chatting to them about one thing, another got into the mix and, well, you know what sells papers. So now I am, if in the most sincere manner, complicit. I don't know if the Ross Gazette content is online to point to what appeared, both as article and letter, but as this is long archived at least I feel I should add my notes to them when asked to comment further.

Let the tush-tissue operation commence!

Oo-eck. Am I going to get in trouble? I feel I started all this with my letter to you guys a while ago! So long as it comes across as trying to improve things as opposed to just having a go that's fine. I did not feel the vigilante aspect was going in a helpful direction, and wrote to the Journal (who jumped on the bandwagon a bit sensationally) to clarify, and am glad they printed that.

However, looking at what you reported* our councillors as coming up with in response, it all seemed a bit low on.... tangibles. And if we are to sort out what, despite the 'tosh' dismissal, they seemed to agree was a problem that needing nipping in the bud, I think a tad more substance may be in order. And it may surprise them that I am not alone.

*'Cllrs agree a stronger police presence was needed... and are requesting a visit... so they can relay their fears' - so they have them too, it's not really 'tosh' then? And fears have not be relayed before? Surely not? If so, why not?

*Cllr Lucas - 'We don't need reminding that we only have one policeman dedicated to the town' - Well, from reading the rest maybe it seems they do. What else don't they feel in need of reminding of? Not a great bit of feedback. As to tanks, well, I suspect Mr. Jenkins was being 'colourful'. There are no AK-47s either, but can Cllr Lucas argue that, at times, there are not groups occupying certain areas outside of normally accepted levels of behaviour, with the forces of law a tad absent? I think his rebuttal was disingenuous at best.

*Cllr Cutter - 'the lack of a police presence needed addressing' - to address what, if not real and legitimate concerns?

*Cllr Ravenscroft, whilst offering at least one suggestion (a community police officer. Hmn. Powers? Authority? Support? We are talking some rather nasty stuff to deal with here) - 'Ross is not alone' - So, as Beirut (ok, some Yardie areas of Brum) has it bad then we can't look at putting our own town in order? This is an oddly dismissive comparison and justification to make. I for one don't care about elsewhere. My family lives here. If it's about stretched resources that is well worth bringing to the fore. Why are they stretched? What can be done? Who is not doing their job(s), as a shrug and 'life's tough' isn't really going to cut it.

*Cllr Bartrum - '2/3 of a recent forum felt there was a perception of lawlessness' - And yet it's 'tosh' to be concerned, then? Two thirds!!! I don't know what forum it was, but as a reflection of the town that's a fairly hefty sample!

Whilst agreeing Mr. Jenkins may have been a tad OTT, especially with his vigilante talk, it's what gets you noticed by the media... and politicians.

And can these worthy gents really argue that there are not people under the influence (if underage why, how?), and who do drive in ways that are not reasonable (why?), and who are likely responsible for the town's other possible twinning moniker: Ross-in-Shuttering, for all the smashed and boarded windows.

To deny this, and that some people at least are aware, unhappy and even threatened that not all is as rosy as it could and should be, seems... interesting, at least to this voter assessing the new team as they settle in. As is what I sensed was a slight message of 'butt out', which did not sit well. But maybe, and I hope this was the case, this was by reading it without the benefit of hearing it being said.

Your tax money at work

Politeness 'missing from society'
Britain needs to do more to promote good manners, Tony Blair's "respect czar" Louise Casey has said.

She gets paid for this?

Gotta ask. Gotta tell.

I recall, a few years ago when the latest disability legalisation came out, getting a bunch of what amounted to extortion emails from 'consultants', who had 'noted' that our site was not as compliant as it could be and would, for a fee, not report us.

I got rid of them all by pointing out that it had been briefed from the outset to be as all-embracing as possible (with a Bobby rating taboot), and if there were areas we could improve would appreciate being told where they were so we might address them. Why would I not? Reaching out in any way practicable - note that - simply improves our audience base. Never heard back.

So I must say that at the time, and still, the way it all got inspired, imposed and handed over to such folk with legislative backing really p*ssed me off. I even recall a poster on the topic, with a wheelchair-bound individual in a judge's wig, waving a gavel, saying 'We're out to get you!'. Not, I felt, the most engaging way to inspire cooperation.

And with a website, especially one that is user-driven, there are many factors afoot, from design considerations to how editorial may or may not get perceived by the majority of the audience, who can take a number-penalising hike if one panders to some demands.

Hence this struck a chord: eHarmony sued in California for excluding gays

Now I could care less what you orientation is, and our site is not configured to exclude anyone, save for the consequences of some disabilities that we really are in no position to address.

So, in many ways, should anyone choose to ignore the possible reaction of other users by failing to be all-inclusive, this simply seems a matter of 'why not?', closely followed by 'more fool them,' topped off by 'ignore the silly so and so's'.

eHarmony can obviously afford the changes required, but for a site of our size a failure to offer certain additional options can be financially punitive, especially when we are free to kick off. So demanding we add stuff at our expense would seem... unfair.

But it's more the principle of the thing, and now a gay bar in Australia has won the right to exclude heterosexuals it looks like there may be a slight unravelling taking place.

I'm all for protection from abuse, but this all simply smacks of a bunch of chancers trying to make a fast buck in the name of what should have been something noble, by abusing a poorly-considered bit of PC legislation (which seems to be most of them).

I fear there will be few winners bar the lawyers. As always.

You are what you read?

I was having my morning trawl through the onlines, when this caught my eye.

I simply note that, with all that is going on in the world, a cross-section of Guardian Unlimited readers gave the top four slots to footy, and the fifth to a fashion show.

At least it was ethical.

Bless.

Anti Ageing Dream

The anti-ageing cream conundrum

Don't know whether you smoke (in which case you could have stubbed out a ciggie in his eye), but unless your pub-based beverage of choice is non-alcoholic, your search for compensatory measures may be in vain. As with all things, simply doing without seems not to be an option when you can aways buy more.

Actually, I have been more annoyed by the sheer volume of free advertising given this wonder product by the media. But silly paid journos saying silly things will do as well

Biter bit?

Delicious.

Tablet facing race complaint

Good job they are unlikely to be up for any senior Conservative spokespersons posts.

Think it. Just don't get caught telling.

Who needs freedom of speech anyway?

Branson's Solar Spaceship Ate My Hamster!

Green visionary or pipe dreamer?

“the 50-year-old entrepreneur has repeatedly managed to get Hollywood celebrities and other investors to join his ventures."

Bong smoker, more like.

Lord spare us from yet more hype based on celebrity obsession fuelled by the media.

Would we even have heard about this but for that para above?

Yes, it would be nice to think it 'could' work, but as with all things green and topical, the one thing that gets forgotten is the enviROI; the cost to the planet.

A bunch of dipsy celebs boost their cred by blowing chump change on something financially unsound but which does make a positive difference is fine by me.

Getting a wadge of PR by consuming vast resources to screw up the planet even more for my kids... no, I don't think so.

Woe is m... oney

Unwise councils

It's an idealistic dream to think that these things can be reversed, any more than you can uncrash a plane.

The comparison with the private sector (the more realistic, SME-one, not the big corporations who behave, especially at the top, just like government) is interesting, though I do wonder to what extent the inefficient can get weeded out at all, let alone cost-effectively, without gridlock.

There is a vast army that has been created to serve itself, and those who created it, though naked self-interest first and foremost. All within the democratic process.

It may appeal to have more and more bean counters, but eventually if there is no one left (or can afford) to make any beans to count, then cannibalism seems the only recourse. In political terms that seems to translate into social unrest.

'..they should make a point of voting for parties and individuals who recognise this profligacy cannot be sustained any longer.'

And these parties would be...? We're two months off and I am none the wiser.

So what has been written makes for interesting comment, but I don't see any practical solutions.

Which is the other sad legacy of present day life. Those make are marginalised by those who do little more than talk.

You never know

Green and pleasant

'The journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step.'

Now... don't get worried, get weaving!

At least you have been moved to try, and are to be applauded. All I ask is that we don't get subjected to yet another Islington version of making a difference, so those of us not blessed with the speed dial to a rocker with a tight schedule may feel equally inspired to do our bit as well, with perhaps a little less of the green that makes going green more pleasant for some.

Stop thinking interest-group (that includes Govt.) agendas. The heck with carbon trading (so long as guys in suits are in charge of them). Recycling is great. But reduction is better. And in between are reuse and repair, which can be fun and very rewarding.

I'm staking my kids' future on it. And it's a heck of a legacy to leave.

Click the link to find out more. We can all be bipolar explorers together.

Way too much time on his hands

It's OK, MPs are recycling hot air

"How, I hear you ask, did your old chum W. A. come to be the leading "green guru" (dread job description!) to all three major parties?"

To be deadly, if unfashionably, serious juts this once, for a scribe the mandatory is also to live only within the London C (as in 'centric')-zone.

That way the fool-miles are easier to justify:)

Title Fight

Titles matter.

Does an Ace beat a King? A King a Queen, etc.

Of course, there is the small matter of the Jester.

Because when it comes to climate science, this has become key.

I am guessing a Professor beats a Doctor, but maybe not.

Then there are qualifiers.

Does 'eminent' mean more than 'noted'. And in what combination?

And is the quiet guy, who knows his/her stuff and gets on with it, better to explain than the one with a slick sound bite and speed dial to the media?

Frankly, I do not know what to believe any more, because I do not know who to believe.

Pity.

When bad deeds make good copy

To the grievance community, it's always someone else's fault

Fine words.

So, what can you... we... do about it?

Or is this just another talking shop industry within an industry with all sides having a vested interest in maintaining the status quo?