Talk, talk... and, then...

Telegraph - The Tories have listened to James Dyson's advice – now they must act on it

Possibly a few fewer ‘Heads of’ at entities might also help.
I was inspired by county councillor over at another post who bet ‘a pound to a penny’ on the matter of quangos, and it seems apposite here, too..
It is my experience that in this era of spin over substance, £1 of funding usually does end at about a penny delivered to the intended beneficiary once every entity in the process has built its empire, stuffed its board, created the pension pot, established regional outposts and hired consultants to assess and dispense.
Why most bother wasting their time applying and simply leave this lot to bask in their own bubbles is beyond me.
Let us see if what is talked gets walked.
Which reminds me, I downloaded the report, but at 57pp have yet to get around to reading it. Which I must.

Well, the headline works for me at least

Tories unveil recycling pay plans

I just hope the enviROI still adds up.

Think ahead a few years

Are the Tories backsliding on their commitment to the environment?

Questions to ponder.

Nero would be proud

Tory hot air on carbon offsetting

I'd love someone to explain how this offsetting works to reduce emissions and not just redistribute them with an extra cut of City-slicker lifestyle thrown into the mix to reduce the remote chance of a positive enviROI even more.

The only way I can see this working, or any other Carbcon prefixed initiative, other than yet as another a get rich quick obscene green scheme, is that if the whole planet cooperates.

Good luck with that, so to mix a few metaphors, why not make hay on fiddling futures while Rome burns?

Nothing like a bit of balance...

...but you can just end up coming down on neither side: Tories ditch green taxes

See, this blog is balanced; we think they are all useless. However, it would be nice to see one of the sorry crew in Westminster (Greens excepted) take a principled stand and stick to it, whilst finding ways to balance the two 'E's (see labels).

Feeling in safe hands?

In light of my previous post, to Newsnight, following their insights into the state of political response to climate change and the reaction of the electorate to it.

This has just popped in from the Green Party (well, a spokesperson, I guess): GREEN TORIES? NOT LIKELY!

Siân Berry takes on Zac Goldsmith:
http://www.newstatesman.com/200709200057

To see Zac Goldsmith's reply please go to:
http://www.newstatesman.com/200709190003

To see Siân's orginal post please go to:
http://www.newstatesman.com/200709170001

Q... blooming E... flipping D

And when they were up they were up, and when they were green they came down

There used to be a phase, now very un-PC and hence used no more: Indian Giver. Basically it meant (I think) offering something and then retracting it. It doesn't take much to see how this process is often worse than doing nothing at all.

So we come to Cameron 'drops controversial green pledges'

No sooner than I was getting my head around the 549 (lost two here) page report's summary (the full thing I'll leave to the 'RILEwings' (hey... and acronym: RIght/LEft wings) to cherry pick and gnaw to death, or hope some halfway objective journo may do so) than it looks like it really isn't worth the bother.

A shame, because that's not really how it was meant, but in this instant gratification/immediate reaction world, it was hard to separate a 'study' from policy. So while you can admire looking at an issue, warts and all, there seems to be a need to package it such that this clear distinction gets made in the minds of those for whom it is intended.

As it stands, I have no clue what is in or out, and hence really can have no opinion save for what seems a good idea, what might not be and, as they are different, what may/may not be good ideas to have if you want to win an election to get to do rather than just talk.

Carrots are good in this regard, but they better be pretty clear and trusted to salve the likely reaction to some less than lifestyle friendly hits.

There is also my enviROI bugbear: big vs. populist hits. At least as to what gets reported, which may be beyond the party's control.

The Quality of Life report analysis in the Indy does, I hope at least with the Recommendation ( I am unsure about the Expert View), conform to my desire for objectivity. I can't disagree with them, though I would want a lot more. For instance developing sustainable timber into stopping deforestation. I share its key points here:

Greenhouse gases

Recommendation: To combat climate change, the Tories should plan for an 80 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, not the current 60 per cent target.

Expert view: This will hardly be among today's headlines about restricting flying and making gas guzzling cars more expensive, but to green campaigners it will stand out as an absolutely key commitment. It is increasingly clear to scientists that a 60 per cent cut in Co2 will not nearly be enough to halt the progress of global warming. In its draft Climate Change bill, however, the Labour government is sticking with the 60 per cent target.

Nuclear energy

Recommendation: The final decision on whether or not to build a new generation of nuclear power stations should be left to the private sector, and primarily based on economics.

Expert view: This nuclear fence-sitting is very different from the historic Conservative line on nuclear power, which (especially under Margaret Thatcher) was to give it unquestioning and rock-solid support. It also sharply differentiates the Tories from Labour, who are firmly backing nuclear power, and the Lib Dems, who would ban it. Probably a compromise that the Tory leadership, and the party, will go along with; the greens are pleased.

Biofuels

Recommendation: A Tory government should press ahead with biofuels to cut down Co2 emissions, but be very careful of the pitfalls associated with them.

Expert view: Transport fuels made from crops produce no net Co2 (because they absorb it as they grow) and therefore are increasingly seen as a quick fix to cut missions. But they also present potentially enormous environmental and social problems, including rainforest destruction and large-scale use of agricultural land, driving up food prices. Biofuels, says the report, should play an increasing role but be chosen for quality not quantity, with origin verified by the Government.

Sustainable timber

Recommendation: A Tory government should make the importation of timber from questionable sources illegal.

Expert view: Legislation should be brought in to ensure that only legal and sustainable timber products are sold in the UK. Many green campaigners and others concerned about the continuing destruction of the rainforests will welcome this proposal heartily. According to the World Wide Fund forNature, in 2005 the UK was the biggest importer of illegal timber in Europe, with the total making up 26 per cent of our imported wood.

Indy - Should we believe politicians when they promise to save the earth? I don't think so - my point about the messenger vs. the message writ clear. I must try and track Zac's Telegraph piece.

Telegraph - 'We can't carry on soaking up resources'

Big Mac

I referred to it before but, as is the way, almost forgot due to events, dear boys and guys... events. The Conservative report is now out, and warrants another outing, starting here: Tory report backs increased taxes on flights and cars

Interestingly, listening to the Jeremy Vine show 'tother day, I would say the BBC is seemingly in pendulum mode balance wise, because this didn't half cop it!

I'm sure there'll be more. And I just hope I can find the time to read it all (but at 549 pages that may not happen - which may be a metaphor for the disconnect between those telling us stuff and us listening/doing) and add my t'pennyworth without relying on others, and their biases, to creep in first.

To kick off: A quality report

I'd love to read it (ta, Guardian) to form my own view, but at 549 pages that may not happen.

Which, in a climate where there is a seeming disconnect between those who are telling us what to do, and what 'we' actually pay attention to and act upon, may explain some things.

I guess I'll do what I always do and just let the various 'wings' slug it out and bumble along in my own sweet way if it makes sense, seems fair and has a decent enviROI.

Guardian - MPs: government should help citizens 'do their bit' on climate change - Well, D'uh. As opposed to what?

Carrot Tops

I just watched the newly-celeb billed (why?) Andrew Marr show, with one guest being Zac Goldsmith, who was there to explain the new Conservative proposals on the environment.

These are by all accounts discussed in the papers today and I will add links as I come across them later. And then there is the report itself, which is due soon.

I must say how well he came across, though Andrew Marr is not exactly the most challenging of interviewers, and was encouraged by the commitment to 'carrot first, stick second' initiatives.

One obvious one, though smart in its thinking, is to put the incentives at the best point. Hence lowering stamp duty at the point of a house being exchanged in a sale, when there is the best opportunity to upgrade.

Just... I wonder about the logistics of assessment to ensure it is carried out as intended. Also, as one who is committed to eco-upgrades at every opportunity, I remain concerned at forthcoming incentives to those who improve, which leaves hanging whether those who have already may see less reward for having done so. Targets based on improvements are OK, but not if they favour those who hold back to get a better bonus. That is bad enviROI as well as being unfair.

He was also quite clear on the matter of celebrity 'awareness', which was refreshing. By birth and position he cannot help to be who and where he is, but as a multi-millionaire his stated beliefs came across as quite Fiesta Family friendly as to Prius Person Pontificating.

BBC - Tory group urges 'green rebate' - nice to see the FoE on baord

Indy - Tories bite tax bullet in battle for the green vote

Guardian - Tory green package targets short-haul flights and landfill

Confused!*!

There was an interesting article on this morning's Indy on-line version about how both the Lib Dems and the Tories had developed plans for major CO2 emissions cuts for the whole of the UK.

But coming back to it to review it for comment, the article has now been removed from their site!

What gives? Has someone dropped a major clanger? Or was someone telling porkies and they withdrew it as soon as it was realised?
______________________
Update:
The article is now back in place, albeit looking slightly amended, though I cannot honestly state just what has actually changed. The original was timed at something like 07:09, this version is timed at 09:15.

Maybe a minor editorial change was all that happened?

ADDENDUM (by Junkk Male) - This from the Greens: Lucas questions grey parties' commitment to tackling climate change - 'Grey parties'. I like that... clever.