Pah ethics!

Good to have em, so long as you know all the issues and/orconsequences.

Is cheap supermarket clothing as ethical as it should be?

If cheap supermarket clothing is 'unethical', would it be legally available for sale in this country?

If 'ethics' are simply a matter of labour conditions (which I don't think they are), would this not fall under the ethical foreign policies this government espouses?

If so, there should be rules, so those of us without the time (or the single track mindset to pursue pet issues and decide it is the only one there is) can be confident that our consumer choices in this country are all they could and should be.

If that carries an extra cost to us here, that we are happy to sustain, so be it.

And it can be a matter for our elected representatives to control, with oversight by media and activist groups to highlight, with the people's mandate.

Anything in excess of what the country decides upon can of course be voted upon with wallets and personal choice.

I just hope the decision-making process is better informed than some on such as biofuels or food miles, which have worked so well on the liberal guilt ethics of Middle England, but perhaps not so well on the ground elsewhere.

Reporting news, or influencing... making policy?

It's a fine line. I have long considered Newsnight to be one of the few credible broadcast news shows left, but of late there's a lot that really makes me think another media plot is being lost.

First up is a rather odd notion of balance when it comes to their reporting of various members of various political parties not, as such, following various rules. A quick look at the show blog will see how this is going down. I, for one, was not ' glued to my seat ' on the rather minor distraction of the opposition party's possible admin/reporting failures, but a tad more interested in the role of a government Minister in setting up a shell company to conceal massive loans to come almost last in a key, if internal, election.

But as I was pondering the ever more defiant and desperate bunker-bulletins coming out of Auntie to try and prop up their editorial and journalistic standards, I happened across this, by way of a bit of news: Newsnight report leads to cotton ban

It struck a chord, because a wee while ago I cut out an ad about cotton, which bearing in mind the client was unsurprisingly upbeat.

Now, I don't know much about it, but I have this notion that it's not that great a crop eco-wise. For one, I believe (subject to confirmation) that it is water intensives. Hence a mission is embarked upon.

And this piece will form part.

Thing is, while I can appreciate the information, the whole ethical thing comes across just a tad to smugly as another luvvie ban-fest. Which in my book cannot be good unless the complexities are are all ironed out, as to assuage Western guilt in one small area can often have major negative influences in all sorts of others.

You can call me 'Al'

ETHICAL MAN GOES GLOBAL

'Newsnight's one-time Ethical Man, Justin Rowlatt, travels (somewhat unethically by plane) to India - ETHICAL MAN GOES GLOBAL'
-----------------------

I don't know how he fared with families there, but he didn't do too well here. As to whether it was 'somewhat' something ending in 'ical', ethics were not the first thing that sprang to mind.

Glibly admitting the blatant nature of a 'don't do as I do; do as I say' reason, if not excuse, really doesn't (green)wash any more, even with the sad attempted justification of 'raising awareness'. But it is still being trotted out as if it justifies anything, no matter how superfici-al (another one) done in the name of eco.

As Saint Bob Geldof recently opined about the forthcoming Live Earth concerts: 'We are all pretty [gosh darn] aware enough already, and really don't need a bunch more celebs flying all over the place to tell us'. Such as Mr. 'Well, you know, not flying isn't really practical...for folks like ME' Blair, 'You can call me - in my Lear - Al' Gore, Leonardo 'I try to fly commercial' diCaprio, Richard 'So it's a few rich guys atop a column of greenhouse gasses to have a Kodak Moment in the stars - but I've sponsored a prize' Branson' and every eco-writer whose doom and gloom book has been preceded by a global promo tour.

All followed, or mirrored by just as '-al' journalists who seem big on justification and low on irony. I imagine it will not be long before Justin has to fly up to the icy wastes to join half the BBC already there 'studying' what Global Warming is doing to the icy wastes, thanks in part to all the folk flying up there to 'study' it.

Sure it may be your job. But that's the point. We all have jobs, and a lot of them involve some form of flying. If you won't... can't... shouldn't have to forgo this in the name of earning a living, why the heck should anyone else? THAT is the only message all this fake concern for the environment conveys. The BBC trumpets the world's largest network of correspondents, so why do we need one to fly, presumably with crew, to India to report on it there? If it's for a quick entertainment ratings fix then admit it, but don't try and pretend it is 'somewhat unethical' or has one whit to do with concern for our planet or kids' futures upon it.

I just look forward (with dread) to when a few thousand Indian journalists come over here to see how our water levels are doing, followed by a newly affluent middle class from Asia who as a consequence don't think any restrictions need to apply to them either. No wonder, with such a message from the media: 'whoever it is, it isn't me'.

THIS was his first return at living ethically having ended his year and dropped the 'attempt' like last night's leftovers in the waste bin???! He can, apparently, because he's 'no longer ethical'. Well, golly, that's all right then.

No wonder George isn't giving up his car. Good to see he can get his aircon fix at M&S though. I guess paying for plastic bags here soon will make up for it.

Nice one, BBC... nice one.

VIDEO

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?

A toast to Ethical Man? Or Ethical man is toast?

Wednesday, 11 April, 2007

So Gavin introduces our hero as 'Ex-Ethical Man'. Following the one year 'experiment' in 'individual' behaviour, he who would carry the burden of our sins is 'dead'. How very topical, considering the time of year. Does becoming ex-ethical mean one reverts to being UNethical?

I tuned in rather hoping, indeed expecting, answers to the questions that could get posed to the Green E(for eco)-lite (pronounced 'leet', naturally) in reply to yesterday's call on these pages, but came away a tad disappointed.

The preamble was interesting, as much for what was not said as was. Cars are fully 20% responsible for our household footprints. Wow! At least, being London-based, this burden is immediately removed by the simple (so long as you live in a city with decent urban transport) expedient of getting rid of the family car. Well, so long as there is one on standby for 6 weeks in the year. And the option of others on tap for rental purposes. I'm assuming the aspects of manufacture, storage, maintenance and operating were factored in before being struck off this guilt-free list.

Then there was the mea culpa on population, though one might think dragging Larry Lebensraum into a creche full of very prolific yummier mummies was a tad trivial and unfair - ' so... which blonde, blue-eyed little munchkin gets the chop, eh?'. I rather think he held his ground quite well against such a Guido Fawksian set-up, and have to admire his guts.

As I did the pols who actually managed to answer at least one question, on population, towards the end of the discussion and, surprisingly given Gavin's directness, in the affirmative. Hailing from Singapore, where I spent a large chunk of my life, I well remember the 'stop at two' campaigns. Though as was rather darkly muttered, it was a 'difficult' subject, which is code for 'one that will be dropped asap'. Rather gets into dodgy waters, rather quickly, if debated too deeply or at length. One presumes Mr. Lomborg is in favour of such expansion, as it is hard to imagine what else directing vast resources into dealing with AIDS, malaria and water deprivation is going to result in around various continents.

Anyway, to the questions or, as far as I could tell, question. And that was why the government was spouting all this guff about Stern, IPCC, Uncle Tom Cobbly and all, yet was still pretty much on the side of getting as many folk up and at 'em on RyanAir as soon as possible.

And Mr. Miliband's answer? Well, he didn't seem to have one. Again.

What we got... again... was an awesome display of factual recall, as he reeled out a bunch of stats on what 'we' were doing and how awful it all was (so 'we're 3 x worse than a German'? What does that actually mean? Is that a Fiesta driving district nurse in Cumbria vs. a Frankfurt Airbus salesman with a Prius as well as a Merc?). As a swot analysis it was great, only without the strengths or opportunities.

We were then directed to forget about this trivial 5% that may need be addressed but with no indication how, and look at the bigger, 95% picture, with equal lack of anything tangible here either. Hence still not addressing the question. But we did then come straight back to air travel, only this time to learn that its cost 'needs to be recognised', presumably by the application of passenger duties... that help, how exactly?

Only the Green party lady seemed prepared to stick to her guns and advocate a total ban on domestic air travel, before we got embroiled in a rather dodgy bit of claim and counter claim on the costs (rightly highlighted as a pretty important factor by the Tory representative) of rail vs. air. Mr. Miliband stated a clear fact that rail is cheaper, and it was left at that. Is it? Really? I know of almost no eco-friendly trip I can take, locally, regionally or internationally, that has a comparable financial balance to support the envROI. Pretending otherwise is either daft, duplicitous or simply another result of having a London-based, job and pension-insulated elite who have no conception of what is required to run a business or sustain a family in this country these days. No wonder the road pricing 'sell' went down so well.

It was in conclusion posed that the environmentalists have 'won 'the' argument'. What argument? There are hundreds of issues and thousands of arguments swirling all around them. Is the media so self-absorbed now that it really thinks something this complex can be summed up in a soundbite? Here's one: NOT ALL THAT IS GREEN CAN BE VIEWED ONLY IN BLACK AND WHITE.

At least there were a few, minor nuggets I plucked out that I could nod along to:

Good e-practice can't be sold by pain and punishment, or stick over carrot.

We need to inspire folk with simple things that save them money.

We need to encourage carbon free ways of doing what we enjoy doing.

Well, here's a non-standby plug for something that does all that - a FREE website promoting re:use ideas of stuff made from junk that you'd normally throw away:

http://www.junkk.com

I just can't figure out why, when its existence has been made clearly known to almost all major media, government, funders and political parties that the spirit of re:duction, re:use and re:pair espoused here, and elsewhere, does not get more support.

Maybe it's because the only target is DOING something in the home, as an individual.

And that seems a slightly better legacy than the message of a guy who shrugs and says he is 'going back to flying', with a 5-person long haul flight for starters (how much did the solo jaunt to Jamaica offset the total annual 'good' achieved elsewhere?), but is at least intending to pee on his grave to make up.

Pity. It could have been so much more. But simply ended up as so much... compost.

Indy - Jeffrey Sachs is wrong once again: rising population isn't going to destroy the planet

The 64,000 hour question

Ethical Issues - Your questions

They asked. I wonder how well they'll listen:

A challenging year perhaps, but one trusts a rewarding one.

We have shared your ups and downs and, along with info from the programme, some very useful tips and links on this very site, which will hopefully point us in better enviro-directions.

I'm afraid I missed the peeing on the compost and, mercifully, the hippy poo (more roughage, doubtless), but do have some concerns on where this leads if embraced by all (surely what is being advocated, though there seem to be some who aspire to a career in being greener in comparison to others, and would thus surely require such divisions of lifestyle to remain to stay in paid voyeuristic spotlight) following a line of thought I embarked upon when I saw another programme advocating home composting toilets by another eco-guru. What would the social hygiene consequences be if 10 million folk in London got inspired to follow suit?

As to doing without the family car... well, that's more the one owned by your family to be strictly accurate, is it not? I do recall some tons of manufactured metal being used to consume some hydrocarbons subsequently, when push came and shove was not really an option.

Work, career and family, eh? So we now end your mission with the arrival of the lovey Elsa, who you say blew it all with the first breath she took.

Speaking of which, and knowing what you know now, for her sake (or, more likely her kids' kids sakes), it is to be hoped that being ethical doesn't stop just because the producer's deadline has expired and the show needs to move on to feed on newer ratings fare. That would send a rather unfortunate message out about the triviality of our media, and the disposability of ethics, along with our more tangible consumerist waste products. Not to mention, as those darn IPCC science bods (et Al, as in... well, you've met him) keep harping on, going 'back' in any way shape or form looks like it's going to bring the possible tipping point ever nearer. How many journalists did it take to cover that, sans irony? Now, there was one in Brussels. Another in Mexico and, my personal favourite, the one who'd flown specially to the Arctic wasteland to show us what all that flying was doing. So make sure on your next holiday to Marbella you say you're studying climate change and you'll be golden.

There are so many detailed questions to ask, and I see them building up already, but I will concern myself with just one. But it is a biggie:

Qu: - Assuming it is agreed by them all (in words, if not actions) that man-made carbon emissions need to be reduced, which political party is prepared to commit itself ONLY to the cause of genuine, clear and simple positive enviROI solutions (no greenwash to buy a vote, spin a headline or buy off a lobbyist - simply something that saves a lot more carbon than it costs to make and run), explained honestly in terms the public can understand, sold for the betterment of our kids' long-term futures and not short-term political gain, any eco-activist corporate agenda, commercial career/bottom line benefit or media ratings-driven kneejerk?

I'm holding my breath. Looking at who would lead us into the future currently, ethically or not, I fear I may yet need all I can save.

The Lord-it-over-you giveth. And what geth takethaway...eth?

Fairtrade Man: day one

I don't envy the food miles carbon offset!

Now if we would all only eat stuff from halfway around the planet...

PR in the roar!

S'funny 'cos it's troo: Odd mix of ear ache and erotica