I'd already posted on this baby, but in reviewing the posts (a lot, but some good ones, so I broke my 'no more than 100' rule) I found I might have been hasty in my critique of our reaching for the stars efforts. Well, at least the punting rich geezers up there bit , anyway.
As there are some here who seem to know, I would like to tap into the collective intellectual resource being brought to bear to help me with a question.
For a while I have been perhaps a tad less than fair to one Mr. R Branson in having doubts on his claimed green campaigns - towing planes to take-off (did that ever happen?), biofuel-powered planes (could that ever happen?) and £25M eco-prizes (does that include waiving the rights to profit sharing?) - especially when one of his highest profile current extravaganzas seems to be sending rich tourists into space atop what I had thought to be a massive column of greenhouse gasses.
Now it seems that I may have been unjust, and it's all 'just' (I have to presume there's a smidge of energy in the production, and possibly a tad of pollution still involved in the combustion) oxygen and hydrogen, though I also do recall steam to be considered a greenhouse gas.
We have a most helpful earlier offering as regards Ariane, but can anyone enlighten me as to what other space borne efforts, including Virgin Galactic, actually do consume and exhaust?
ADDENDUM:
One of the (many) frustrations of a moderated system is that Qs can cross with As, and debates can get a tad jumbled. A classic of the former has just happened here, and I pretty much got my answer in an overlap. Fortunately, it seems my usual admittance of bozoness, combined with a quest for answers, was not far off the right track. Unless this latest guy is wrong, I guess. He doesn't sound like he would be, though.
Showing posts with label ETHMAN. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ETHMAN. Show all posts
Saturday, May 26, 2007
I used to be ethical, but now I'm not it's all ok
Has flying been unfairly demonised?
So I watched the cause of reduction being simply being played with for a year, and then figuratively as well as literally get dropped into the bin at the end.
Now, having waded through a lot of interesting, useful, worrying and frankly gob-smackingingly scary stuff here, I think the most potentially damaging thing to the environment I have read is in the original post: '...now that I’m not Ethical Man'.
You can do a lot more damage from within. Ask any Trojan.
Hope the ratings were worth it.
So I watched the cause of reduction being simply being played with for a year, and then figuratively as well as literally get dropped into the bin at the end.
Now, having waded through a lot of interesting, useful, worrying and frankly gob-smackingingly scary stuff here, I think the most potentially damaging thing to the environment I have read is in the original post: '...now that I’m not Ethical Man'.
You can do a lot more damage from within. Ask any Trojan.
Hope the ratings were worth it.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
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
'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
Thursday, April 12, 2007
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
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
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Repitition for effect, the sequel
Newsnight - Tuesday, 20 February, 2007
I'm repeating this as Newsnight is stretching the issue of the Petition over a few days (Very amusing Mr. D Ringer). And there are related matters on the environment to follow (cars do use oil right?)
As it has come up again here (6. Mr. G Edwards) , I'd like to add one more to my list of questions I posed yesterday, as it is a good one and I don't seem to have heard one word by way of an answer on this throughout the 'debate' (that's where people answer other's questions and not just those they fancy, right? And moderators ensure they do, and are truthful, right? Not deny, misinform or stay silent, right?).
Qu: The claim is made that this is not a stealth tax. Without waffle and 'it will be looked into', what % of every £ will go from the tax directly to environmental-related improvements, how much to creating a whole new level of salaried and pensioned administrators, and how much to unspecified other government expenditures. With no guarantee or fair idea on the first we will assume the last two.
I'm afraid to answer a previous poster I am having trouble with the current administration's abilities and record in translating revenue into result without 99% going on logistics.
Qu: The other night on Newsnight, Stephen Ladyman claimed 2 to 3 methods for charging an individual vehicle traveling, one presumes, from A to B, without needing to track its location. How, exactly, do you monitor and charge something accurately without knowing where it was, is and how it got there?
(I was a tad concerned that the interviewer seemed way out of her depth and frankly allowed anyone come out with any accusation or fact they liked without check (see my last post no. 251 in my personal review of the 'debate' yesterday)
Qu: What substantive consideration will be given to the situation and needs of those in non-urban (the bits outside Westminster, Islington, Fleet Street, Canary Wharf, where the BBC lives and Ken pedals to work) areas that are... fair?
Qu: How does Dr. Ladyman propose to answer questions from 1.6M people in tomorrow's webchat?
Will the questions be vetted to provide the best set of answers to suit an established agenda?
If so, and in the absence one presumes of dissenting sides being able to put their case(s) in the same way as the No 10 email, how is this anything like sensible debate, or simply further propaganda?
Qu: Who put Transport 2000 in charge of representing moderate, practical and fair environmental advocacy?
Such organisations seem to get funded to drive even greater wedges between protagonists rather than bridge them.
Qu: Where is the place that says that by signing the email I would be exposed unilateral responses by what is, in essence, unsolicited, unanswerable (would I get a reply) mass email methods? Was this not a major critique of the methods used (without the benefit of a single database) by the pro-'lobby' as this played out over the last few weeks.
It's very hard to trust anything... when you don't believe anything any more.
I want sensible, fair, open, practical, cost-effective, fully future-proof enviROI steps taken to secure my kid's and their kids' lives and livelihoods. If road-pricing is part and parcel, so be it.
But not organised from a bunker in, for and by London.
On other matters....
ps: Interesting the comment/critique in the Ethical Man slot: 'What have you learned in the last year?'. It rather begs the next few:
1) With all the support (free kit, per diems, ex's etc) to get set-up with much that will save money as well as planet if capital costs are ignored (and most of us likely can't, when all's said and done), what have those of us without BBC-cred access to the Green Room at Climate Aid/Global Cool learned?
2) And as it seems you are on the last stretch, what will be retained, by way of capital kit and ongoing 'do-without' practices?
For instance, it sure helps a bit that the Bishop of London is taking over the mantle of one-year no-flying zzzzz-oh-how-good-an-example-izzat?, but it's really not so effective if the UK population does it as an annual relay (or does this just apply to celebs and green elites?).
pps: I was about to groan as Mr. Miliband went into full 'Oh golly, it's a question... duck and dive mode, now' when cocktail-stepped on Big Oil, and the 'It depends, we'll need to look into it..' defence brought out was looking typical, if tired. But I thought he recovered well.
Just... was his answer accurate? Maybe the bosses of Shell and BP, etc could provide an answer every bit as slick as the one they did to John Humphrys at Davos, to the same level of journalistic challenge and insight
Pretty please:)
ADDENDUM:
I guess it has passed from media interest already, and don't know how many revisit these pages over subsequent days, but following Newsnight's piece earlier in the week I was wondering if anyone else watched Dr. Ladyman's webcast on the road petition this day?
Actually, in addition to a few other questions that seem a bit shy on coherent answers, I am still wondering who of the two guests were correct on the matter of what was or what was not said by Dr. Ladyman at the outset of this issue: him or the Sun chap?
When the latter says it is on record and the former says it is not, I really like to know.
Telegraph - Blair to defy 1.8m who signed road petition
(Didn't feel like adding my 2p as it has been a long day, there are 147 at last count and they are a tad selective)
Telegraph - What have the past 10 years of Blair been for?
Just for this: 'But the extra taxes we have paid have been wasted, not least in putting 700,000 socially unproductive people on the public payroll, where they can gratefully vote for Gordon Brown in perpetuity'.
Buying votes? That's like buying positions in roles in the process of government.
Surely this is not possible in a democracy, with an effective opposition... er...oh.
Will the last person who trusts this leadership please switch out the.... click....
Telegraph - What's the real cost of congestion?
I'm already limbering up with all my questions for tomorrow's man-to-1.8M 'webcast' tomorrow.
Now, what are the odds?
I see a few more things getting busted tomorrow, along with a few - as you have pointed out - still unanswered 'myths'.
I would just be happy to know how you charge someone fairly, in London or out, for a journey that 'will not be tracked'.
But then, I am just a poor tool in the sway of those evil petitioner-pushers and am unable to understand what lies... er.. behind the self-evident truths and less evident between-the-lines fudges of 'the mighty email', which in no way is a spam campaign trying to twist the result.
If that was the best the finest brains in the Dept. of Hype 'n Spin under Wee Wully MacGoebbels (why are they all Scots??) could manage in the weeks they have had to prepare, then gawd help them as the revolution comes.
Guardian - That email
Telegraph - No 10's road toll reply ducks tax cut guarantee - there's a wonder. A few other areas dodged, too.
I'm repeating this as Newsnight is stretching the issue of the Petition over a few days (Very amusing Mr. D Ringer). And there are related matters on the environment to follow (cars do use oil right?)
As it has come up again here (6. Mr. G Edwards) , I'd like to add one more to my list of questions I posed yesterday, as it is a good one and I don't seem to have heard one word by way of an answer on this throughout the 'debate' (that's where people answer other's questions and not just those they fancy, right? And moderators ensure they do, and are truthful, right? Not deny, misinform or stay silent, right?).
Qu: The claim is made that this is not a stealth tax. Without waffle and 'it will be looked into', what % of every £ will go from the tax directly to environmental-related improvements, how much to creating a whole new level of salaried and pensioned administrators, and how much to unspecified other government expenditures. With no guarantee or fair idea on the first we will assume the last two.
I'm afraid to answer a previous poster I am having trouble with the current administration's abilities and record in translating revenue into result without 99% going on logistics.
Qu: The other night on Newsnight, Stephen Ladyman claimed 2 to 3 methods for charging an individual vehicle traveling, one presumes, from A to B, without needing to track its location. How, exactly, do you monitor and charge something accurately without knowing where it was, is and how it got there?
(I was a tad concerned that the interviewer seemed way out of her depth and frankly allowed anyone come out with any accusation or fact they liked without check (see my last post no. 251 in my personal review of the 'debate' yesterday)
Qu: What substantive consideration will be given to the situation and needs of those in non-urban (the bits outside Westminster, Islington, Fleet Street, Canary Wharf, where the BBC lives and Ken pedals to work) areas that are... fair?
Qu: How does Dr. Ladyman propose to answer questions from 1.6M people in tomorrow's webchat?
Will the questions be vetted to provide the best set of answers to suit an established agenda?
If so, and in the absence one presumes of dissenting sides being able to put their case(s) in the same way as the No 10 email, how is this anything like sensible debate, or simply further propaganda?
Qu: Who put Transport 2000 in charge of representing moderate, practical and fair environmental advocacy?
Such organisations seem to get funded to drive even greater wedges between protagonists rather than bridge them.
Qu: Where is the place that says that by signing the email I would be exposed unilateral responses by what is, in essence, unsolicited, unanswerable (would I get a reply) mass email methods? Was this not a major critique of the methods used (without the benefit of a single database) by the pro-'lobby' as this played out over the last few weeks.
It's very hard to trust anything... when you don't believe anything any more.
I want sensible, fair, open, practical, cost-effective, fully future-proof enviROI steps taken to secure my kid's and their kids' lives and livelihoods. If road-pricing is part and parcel, so be it.
But not organised from a bunker in, for and by London.
On other matters....
ps: Interesting the comment/critique in the Ethical Man slot: 'What have you learned in the last year?'. It rather begs the next few:
1) With all the support (free kit, per diems, ex's etc) to get set-up with much that will save money as well as planet if capital costs are ignored (and most of us likely can't, when all's said and done), what have those of us without BBC-cred access to the Green Room at Climate Aid/Global Cool learned?
2) And as it seems you are on the last stretch, what will be retained, by way of capital kit and ongoing 'do-without' practices?
For instance, it sure helps a bit that the Bishop of London is taking over the mantle of one-year no-flying zzzzz-oh-how-good-an-example-izzat?, but it's really not so effective if the UK population does it as an annual relay (or does this just apply to celebs and green elites?).
pps: I was about to groan as Mr. Miliband went into full 'Oh golly, it's a question... duck and dive mode, now' when cocktail-stepped on Big Oil, and the 'It depends, we'll need to look into it..' defence brought out was looking typical, if tired. But I thought he recovered well.
Just... was his answer accurate? Maybe the bosses of Shell and BP, etc could provide an answer every bit as slick as the one they did to John Humphrys at Davos, to the same level of journalistic challenge and insight
Pretty please:)
ADDENDUM:
I guess it has passed from media interest already, and don't know how many revisit these pages over subsequent days, but following Newsnight's piece earlier in the week I was wondering if anyone else watched Dr. Ladyman's webcast on the road petition this day?
Actually, in addition to a few other questions that seem a bit shy on coherent answers, I am still wondering who of the two guests were correct on the matter of what was or what was not said by Dr. Ladyman at the outset of this issue: him or the Sun chap?
When the latter says it is on record and the former says it is not, I really like to know.
Telegraph - Blair to defy 1.8m who signed road petition
(Didn't feel like adding my 2p as it has been a long day, there are 147 at last count and they are a tad selective)
Telegraph - What have the past 10 years of Blair been for?
Just for this: 'But the extra taxes we have paid have been wasted, not least in putting 700,000 socially unproductive people on the public payroll, where they can gratefully vote for Gordon Brown in perpetuity'.
Buying votes? That's like buying positions in roles in the process of government.
Surely this is not possible in a democracy, with an effective opposition... er...oh.
Will the last person who trusts this leadership please switch out the.... click....
Telegraph - What's the real cost of congestion?
I'm already limbering up with all my questions for tomorrow's man-to-1.8M 'webcast' tomorrow.
Now, what are the odds?
I see a few more things getting busted tomorrow, along with a few - as you have pointed out - still unanswered 'myths'.
I would just be happy to know how you charge someone fairly, in London or out, for a journey that 'will not be tracked'.
But then, I am just a poor tool in the sway of those evil petitioner-pushers and am unable to understand what lies... er.. behind the self-evident truths and less evident between-the-lines fudges of 'the mighty email', which in no way is a spam campaign trying to twist the result.
If that was the best the finest brains in the Dept. of Hype 'n Spin under Wee Wully MacGoebbels (why are they all Scots??) could manage in the weeks they have had to prepare, then gawd help them as the revolution comes.
Guardian - That email
Telegraph - No 10's road toll reply ducks tax cut guarantee - there's a wonder. A few other areas dodged, too.
Friday, February 09, 2007
A Mighty Wind
In light of recent discussions, I have decided to re-post to Newsnight:
Are domestic wind turbines an eco-con?
I very much appreciate these blog posts because, between the inevitable extremes of opinion, there are some smart cookies who do seem to know what they are talking about and can share some worthwhile facts.
Hence I have revisited after quite a while, as a consequence of a BBC news report this morning, the content accuracy (or at least diligence to put PR in context) of which rang a few bells in my mind.
My main concern was that the claim was made that a new windfarm would supply half of Scotland.
I raised some doubts on my blog - http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/02/talking-heads.html - and it seems they MAY be founded, but so far those involved in the discussion would be the first to admit we don't know.
Should anyone who does revisit these pages some answers would be appreciated.
I fear that my faith in objective reporting, even my our premier national news channel, is being seriously eroded as it becomes more and more of a PR-patsy for government and other organisations who wish to be seen to be doing 'good' in pushing their agendas.
My only concern is delivering genuine enviro-ROI from initiatives that will improve my kids' futures, and not some pol's career, activist's pension plan fund or commercial interest's lobby pot.
Or, for that matter, some unconcerned journalist/editor/producer's desire just to fill a slot under the name of 'news'.
And just for fun, I have written to the editor:
More Ethical Man territory (I've posted on his piece on the matter as well), but this does extend to other issues you have raised, such as the programme's and indeed BBC's role in sharing objective information. My main area of concern is how we are being driven in the area of environmental good practice, and what I perceive as a poor level of context and objectivity on many issues that surely demand as much as reasonably possible before people commit their money, votes and kids' futures, based on what is often little more than agenda-driven, target-based, career/empire-enhancing or profit-generating PR.
From pieces on electric cars that 'don't pollute' (they do, it's just the exhaust pipe is in a different place) to a slot on wind-farm generation today that frankly didn't add up, I'd be much more inclined to enthusiastically embrace all these planet-saving initiatives if I didn't feel I was being conned, and not very well, by all those with the most to gain... in the short term. It's as shame that I feel the media I should trust most are complicit in taking me along for the ride.
Are domestic wind turbines an eco-con?
I very much appreciate these blog posts because, between the inevitable extremes of opinion, there are some smart cookies who do seem to know what they are talking about and can share some worthwhile facts.
Hence I have revisited after quite a while, as a consequence of a BBC news report this morning, the content accuracy (or at least diligence to put PR in context) of which rang a few bells in my mind.
My main concern was that the claim was made that a new windfarm would supply half of Scotland.
I raised some doubts on my blog - http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/02/talking-heads.html - and it seems they MAY be founded, but so far those involved in the discussion would be the first to admit we don't know.
Should anyone who does revisit these pages some answers would be appreciated.
I fear that my faith in objective reporting, even my our premier national news channel, is being seriously eroded as it becomes more and more of a PR-patsy for government and other organisations who wish to be seen to be doing 'good' in pushing their agendas.
My only concern is delivering genuine enviro-ROI from initiatives that will improve my kids' futures, and not some pol's career, activist's pension plan fund or commercial interest's lobby pot.
Or, for that matter, some unconcerned journalist/editor/producer's desire just to fill a slot under the name of 'news'.
And just for fun, I have written to the editor:
More Ethical Man territory (I've posted on his piece on the matter as well), but this does extend to other issues you have raised, such as the programme's and indeed BBC's role in sharing objective information. My main area of concern is how we are being driven in the area of environmental good practice, and what I perceive as a poor level of context and objectivity on many issues that surely demand as much as reasonably possible before people commit their money, votes and kids' futures, based on what is often little more than agenda-driven, target-based, career/empire-enhancing or profit-generating PR.
From pieces on electric cars that 'don't pollute' (they do, it's just the exhaust pipe is in a different place) to a slot on wind-farm generation today that frankly didn't add up, I'd be much more inclined to enthusiastically embrace all these planet-saving initiatives if I didn't feel I was being conned, and not very well, by all those with the most to gain... in the short term. It's as shame that I feel the media I should trust most are complicit in taking me along for the ride.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)