If you watch one thing...

...watch this (quick):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00p67m8/Panorama_Can_Tesco_Save_the_World/

About that incentive thing...

As many will know, I am not big on nanny, fine, guilt, scare, etc.

Tories will lend every household £6,500 to save energy and make money

Slightly better than blowing £6M on 'awareness'?

But...

Then look at the comments. That's against 'finding' £1.65B to fund it. Hence, a bit hard to grasp on how it will work. Only another £1B to go.

Interesting how the feedback is almost unremittingly negative, in a Conservative-friendly paper.

But I think this one at least shows an interest in looking in more productive directions.

I just wanted to see it again in print...

Could Gordon Brown save the Earth from climate change?

If only to see the words 'Gordon Brown' in the same sentence with 'save'.

At least it has my favourite qualifier to kick off.

A lesson in laying out policy at voting time...

Labour's real action on climate change

Or, possibly, not.

This being the Guardian, a once safe haven, the comments are telling.

I am getting a tad ticked off with the choice of only two sets of pols at the moment: those that are clearly deluded and will say anything, and those that are clearly scared of being nailed on anything substantive, and hence say nothing.

Doesn't make one's voting choice tomorrow (and, it looks, next month, if only to try and find a fully-stocked Cabinet to lead us) too easy, but I am at least working to a course if only by a process of elimination.

Addendum

Helped, at the post, by another pol set that doesn't float my boat: if you haven't got anything good to say, say something bad about someone else. Nice one (and I don't just mean the ex's claims). Makes things easier by the moment.

How green is the Labour government?

What a waste. Who was going to decide between Labour and Green on eco issues?

Well, he did ask.

Ethical Man on twitter:

What's up? Disappointing response on blog http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/... not interested in the future of the world?
about 20 hours ago from web

Leads to:

Has Obama lost his bottle on climate?

I fear that the replies so far might not be quite what was wished for by the author. On any measure. So far, not even ten, in reply to a challenge made by a national broadcaster who has spent and is spending a lot (both money and carbon) to push matters in ways that I frankly don't think the majority of the public are either interested in an or buying. That... is poor enviROI at best... wasteful, elitist vanity programming at worst. Here's my reply:

Prompted by the 'disappointing response' (quantity? quality? Or level of support?) challenge in twitter, I can assure you I care very much about the future of my kids on this planet.

However, I do have some concerns about how well it is being served by those who have either appointed themselves or are in privileged positions to help share information in such a way so free thinking folk can make their minds up in an objective atmosphere. And hence, while the message can often have value, I tend to view the messengers, from individual to corporate, quite critically. Especially when 'they' claim to speak for 'me and mine'.

So, taking that last line of the piece, speaking of using less energy....

I fear I had to crank my eyebrow quite early at the notion of using a helicopter for a few seconds' shot 'to picture the scale' of the gently turning wind farm blades.

Like the Hummer-driving-engineer, it seems that many industries - even green-supportive media - can't seem to 'do their jobs' without breezily excusing away certain compromises that are not often accorded lesser mortals struggling to make a crust. This can create a sense of them vs. us situation, often erring on 'do as we say, not as we still like doing because we're creating 'awareness' between which an empathetic bridge is hard to forge.

I was also a bit intrigued about the priorities that can come across, which seemed to me to be;

1) Making money
2) Reduction in GHGs (not clear if that is to 'target' and hence often subsidy-supported, which often is not quite the same as doing right by the planet) and....
3) Production of enviROI+ energy

I would have thought that, beyond reducing at any viable, reasonable, practical point, the generation of energy in a form that produces the lowest 'harmful' by-products should be the main aim, and any advocacy challenged to prove they are so.

And while gimmicks can have a place, especially to help entertain to encourage education and hence information, they can distract. Hence I'd still like a lot more science, and if issues are not clear-cut, well debated by professional scientists and engineers, and not a gaggle of usual suspect interest groups that may make for good TV or meet agendas, but hardly help me arrive at a view on worthy initiatives to support.

For instance there was one point mentioned that I would have liked delved into a lot more. And that was the fact that this vast wind farm was actually located near a town of just 10,000 folk. Now, maybe that's because it's where the wind is. But how does it stack up against, say solar, on a cradle to grave basis (with subsidies stripped away to get a true cost/benefit comparison. It looked pretty darn sunny there. And, just as I subscribe to the notion of wearing a jummie to crank the thermostat down here in winter, I'd probably suggest a suit and tie might lead to the a/c getting cranked up more than it need be where the sun do shine).

And this in turn leads to further questions on massive generation vs. microgeneration, as surely remote locations at distance from consumption do mean compromises to efficiency of delivery.

These are key points that often get glossed over when the discussion seems mainly to be dominated by interest groups, pols and those involved with money on the line. Even academics can be tainted by dubious associations and hence motivations. Hence contentious areas really require more than a couple a views, preferably around the same table, and moderated by chairperson(s) qualified to keep hyperbole in check and call questionable claims to account.

Not something I see or here very often throughout the MSM, and oddly so considering the criticality of the topic and passions that can be aroused in debate.

Hence the decisions made, not made and bottling of by our currently less than stellar political classes become very hard to call.

ps: Did T Boone's people strap you/Justin to the chair for that interview? You/He looks terrified. Can't think why, Mr. Pickens seems a guy well worth listening to?

Brown goes 'green'...again

Brown's electric dream for Britain

Interesting that this vision (check the linked stories... and comments!) is shared in one of the premier news outlets in the UK. Not.

Anyway, this at first glance looks a win win, and hence welcome.

However, the elephant in the room, or the 500kg flat battery in the middle of nowhere, is the not so small enviROI issue of what produces the 'leccy for now and into the foreseeable future.

At least there is a suggestion that the UK exports most of these vehicles to countries where the power to the wheels does not come with a carbon consequence, but I'd be keen to find out more on this as it is currently 'vague'. And many in the MSM seem unchallenging on this.

I am sure things can happen in complement, but wouldn't it make more sense for emissions to have the power supply sorted first (which can surely have the knock-on of helping micro-generation networks?) or at least well in advance?

There is also the not so small matter of what no to low carbon is actually going to be developed to generate this 'leccy; a matter I fear not best decided by desperate pols (Mr. Brown's green commitment seems the only high-speed revolving system that could possibly be harnessed reliably) looking to score a short term point with the media and hence public, egged on by EU targets, subsidy-addicted lobbyists, etc.

Sean O'Grady: Only time can dispel the charges against electric car -

Telegraph - Electric cars to be mass introduced to the UK, says Gordon Brown

Telegraph - So Budget 2009 is going to be green

Guardian - Gordon Brown announces green budget plans - I hope the headline in the panel that gets to this is deliberate... 'Brown pushes electric cars'...genius subbing!

Guardian - Together on electric cars -

FT - Brown proposes electric car subsidy - Have they got this right? Or are they mixing the £2k scrappage proposal in with electrics?

Indy - Jeremy Warner: Is scrappage subsidy really such a great idea?

Gord is in the details...

Which I await with interest.

At least the rate of spin on green issues Dear Leader and his GOAT herd manage could be harnessed to run something productively, as opposed to this country into the ground.

So let me see if I have this correct...

To help the planet, and the UK car industry, when my wife totaled our Volvo, instead of buying another, perfectly good 02 LPG version with the £1650 insurance, I should have waited for a £2k bribe I will co-fund with my taxes to go get a new Beemer 735i on the road?

This helps how on any measure?

On my website there's a feature that deletes words with possible swear words in them. Hence my view is that this is another total load of sCRAPpage.

Telegraph - Germany increases car subsidy to €5bn - 'A new car, a new car! My planet for a new car!' Or.. 'Eine neue auto...'? Interesting to see Dear Leader's G20 anti-protectionism/climate triumph in full flow. Even if it's down the drain. 'Jacquie, what did you do with the plug?'

Telegraph - Gordon Brown should realise electric cars are a battery-powered nightmare

Telegraph - The madness of subsidising inefficient electric cars

Telegraph - Budget 2009: Gordon Brown's 'electric dream for Britain' is really just a dream

Guardian - Japan goes green with £100bn economic recovery

Guardian - Gordon Brown's electric car subsidy rejected by industry - a "pointless soundbite".

Telegraph - Gordon Brown shows how green he really is - the rate of spin of Dear Leader, his fellow GOATs, and their legions of press officers and a mostly compliant MSM could well be harnessed to provide all the 'leccy required to run the other side of Scotland not currently served by the 24/7, 365/365, 100% efficiency wind turbines rotating serenely in a harsh salt water environment miles away from easy maintenance.

And I am planning to use Heathrow's 3rd runway to board Oh Lord M's next flying pig.

Brownite is similar to Kryptonite.

Seemingly green on the outside (at least as told by some and accepted by many in the MSM, but not the general public), but actually deepest in the red within, it is in fact made from the shards of a previously destroyed civilisation, and when brought near anyone of competence or anything of promise, sucks the very life out of it, leaving a powerless husk.

Times - Budget row over £2,000 payout to scrap a car

And, now, the details...

Telegraph - Electric car buyers to be given £5,000 in incentives - Ok, I see your £2k, and raise you £3k more.. Why not just give 'em away? Now, who is paying? Bus passengers?

Guardian - Cars: Electric dreams, clunky reality

Guardian - Labour's £5,000 sweetener to launch electric car revolution - Ultra 'green' how, when?

Guardian - The flaws in the electric car scheme -

BBC - Plan to boost electric car sales

BBC - Hoon's electric vision: How green? - Some very interesting points being made here, so I will value tracking.

As to the original piece that has inspired them, I am wondering how many other senior Government individual's names are going to be lifted off press releases with 'electric' and 'green' in them for weeks to come.

So far I have logged the visions of Call Me Lord Peter Maserati, Green Gordon and now Mr. Hoon. Any others jumping on this caravan we should know about?

For now, with some small cars (sadly not so eco beyond their mpg) going for about the price of the brib...er.. subsidy we're meant to co-fund to get urban dwellers into the dealerships in their droves, how much are these things?

I am really starting to regret the £3.5k I forked out on a perfect, low mileage '02 LPG, thinking this fuel plus keeping a second-hander going for another decade was the green thing to do.

And considering the volumes of raw materials involved in new manufacture, even if... when the generation and distribution of the 'leccy is sorted beyond the known universe within the M25, I would still like to be reassured that the stocks exist to make the necessary numbers of batteries all these folk not using public transport will require.

I am sure the BBC will be on hand to provide objective, qualified advice on this, and other key aspects of a pretty major commitment being made on behalf of future generations.

Newsnight - Interesting Mandelson connection

EU Ref - Slipping over the edge

Telegraph Letters

Indy - Electric dream machines: Are they really the future of motoring?

Times - Beware green jobs, the new sub-prime

Times - Slow start for charge of the electric cars

Indy Letters - The greenest cars are the oldest cars - Who'dha thunkit?

Telegraph - Electric cars labelled 'overhype' at Shanghai Auto Show

Telegraph - Electric cars: the infrastructure must come first - Nah, I think we should blow a ton of dosh on stuff we don't have, that just sounds good and will dump on future generations to sort out the generating issues. Now, with this principle in mind, what else needs addressing today?

FT - Hopping mad about cash-for-clunkers -

WhatGreenCar - WhatGreenCar calculates impact of car scrappage scheme - Arrived at via an email:

Based on the announced car scrappage scheme of £2000 for cars more than 10 years old, WhatGreenCar estimates that the average carbon benefit would be over 50 gCO2/km per car. Assuming average mileage of 15,000 km per year, the carbon saving amounts to over 0.8 tonnes per year per car, or over 4 tonnes per car over the 5-year period during which time the scrapped car may have been used if the scheme had not existed (assuming older cars are scrapped 5 years earlier than would normally be the case).

[These calculations include an assessment of vehicle use, upstream fuel emissions AND vehicle manufacture. The modelling assumes: average tailpipe CO2 emissions in 1999 of 185 g/km; average tailpipe CO2 emissions in 2009 of 154 g/km; upstream fuel CO2 emissions 26-36 g/km depending on fuel type and car age; car manufacture CO2 emissions 21-31 g/km depending on fuel type and car age; 10 year age deterioration factor 10% for greenhouse gases; real world driving factor 15%; diesel penetration 1999 of 17%; diesel penetration 2009 of 44%; average car mileage 15,000 km].

Given that these figures suggest that the planned scheme will have a small, but measurable, environmental benefit, added to the crucial support for jobs in the auto industry (the scheme's main aim), WhatGreenCar broadly supports the car scrappage scheme. That said, it is still our position that an opportunity to further reduce emissions by setting limits on the CO2 emissions of new cars purchased through the scheme has been missed

Whoa! Science. At last a few numbers. And... it looks like they may be positive. However, I'd say this is an ongoing thread still.

Guardian - Budget 2009: Alistair Darling has just thrown away £300m

FT - Electric car subsidies do not serve green goals

Gaurdian - NEW - Hello, is that Peter Mandelson? Want to buy an old motor?

Oops

The Great Green Con: Labour's climate measures mainly hot air

Britain's economic stimulus measures, promoted by Gordon Brown as part of a "global green new deal", will accelerate global warming instead of curbing it

Note that my pet bogey-word, 'could', is missing from this.

McCavity (insulation) and his fellow GOATs not only blow a squillion over the past decade mainly on just looking like they are doing stuff, but actually make things worse in the process.

There's a thing.

Speaking of goats, maybe a new sacrificial quango requires setting up to take the blame? They are pretty good at that, so it might not be a total foul up.

enviROI anyone?

Hmnnnn...

The environment is too important to be left to the green movement

I think I'll just keep on the rest of the day doing stuff to avoid waste.

I like enviROI:)

Though, I suspect some may not like my use of it.

Boris Johnson to slash London environmental team in half

'...a major shake-up that calls into question the commitment to the environment of the mayor'

By whom? Until we see the enviROI of what gets DONE with the money that makes a difference, rather than talked about endlessly between vast overlapping quango empires with vast comms budgets, I will hold any critique or allusions to 'others' making them until they do.

I am a champion for green initiatives leading the charge, but they need to be tangibles that make my kids' futures better, not box-ticking, target-meeting, non-job-creating, multi-million £ 'awareness'-raising, bonus-feeding, lobbyist-pleasing, lipsmacking, ace-tasting... er.. you get my drift:)

But if any lost are making a real contribution, then questions need to be asked, and answered.

ps: I'm guessing that leaked docos are OK, at least for today? (A Guardian journo was on the Jeremy Vine show yesterday saying it wasn't on, and was allowed to allude to the 'whisleblower' being a Tory mole. Which does kinda smack of those plethora of standards that crank my eyebrow.)

Addendum 1:

What's the saying? 'Careful what you wish for... predict... create?

Interesting, but sad, is how this has progressed.

First thing to note is that, other than a few possible observers, beyond the author (and who knows who they post as?) it is a singles' game.

No matter.

I think, on balance, I was at fault. I was rather sweeping in my critique. But then in mitigation I was irritated by a political/media agenda which, in my view, was already producing some slopping reporting.

But in being flip, I may well have conjured up a vision of a red rag to a public-sectorphilic person with a sore head.

That's where my mea culpa ends.

This person was/is on a very high horse and, despite my attempts, decided to stay upon it. Maybe even rear up more. I was in no mood for too much by way of conciliation.

However, as this was swerving into nasty places I have decided to leave, exit stage...right (wing?), followed, I hope not too far, by the bear.

I obviously think this person to be wrong, unfair and aggressive.

Mainly it's the journalist's fault. Dripping with agenda, they came out with a half story and I objected, maybe swinging too far the other way to show how some others may view matters. But I clearly stated that it was this lack of clarity that prevented objective conclusions so far.

Hence it could be a purging pol looking to save a quick buck on a weak voter sector (currently), or it could be some trimming of fat in crunchier times. Having a degree does not guarantee pay and indeed a job for life for a lot of us.

I am satisfied I did my best, fought the corner for enviROI and, coincidentally managed to work in my concerns of the medium and the messengers.

The Guardian can be a fine reporting organ. But it is read by a small minority, and one which seems too often to think 'others' are beneath them, and contempt.

That is a poor way to bring the majority of the UK population onside, especially as articulated by this representative. I think they have given environmental debate a worse name as a consequence.

Addendum 2 -

Hard to leave such things alone, but I think best to move the debate of the pages of the Guardian, noting that they seem to have about two more readers to me.

There has been a reply, which is more friendly at least, and even more balanced, but perhaps as dangerous. Where the previous poster was 'how dare you have another view', this was more 'Why can't we all be friends... and leave the original post as it was'.

Any reader of this blog will know I am an advocate of doing over talking, but sorry, these two options still leave a result that won't wash... at least with me: doing nothing.

Unlike the latest poster, when I look at my two lovely sons, I feel happy, happy happy, and then angry, and then all the more determined to fight for making their futures as good as they can be.

And that means being pragmatic. Divorcing budgets from actions is the naive mantra of the hopeless idealist. Even foot-stamping, cross ones.

I have never said do nothing. I DO things all the time. I simply advocate that what gets done, with all the money that can and will be allocated to do it, goes to tangibles that make a difference.

Take insulation. I have lost count of the number of bodies - with offices and staff and comms budgets and conference passes - that there are to get it into my dear old Mum's cottage. She doesn't need it, because I did it an age ago. But has she... or I... heard from any one of these overlapping numpties, at least in terms that make sense and create engagement. For every £20, subsidised roll, there is a horde of officers and forms and checks and assessments. All overlapping.

I have been wrong, I am often wrong and I will be wrong. And I am more than willing to be told I am, set things straight and work on the positives of correction and promotion.

But I will not be bullied to silence by those who have a nice little number, or seduced by those who think 'green is always good, no matter what the cost'. Especially when it is with my family's money, more often than not to fund them for what they want, rather than what is actually needed.

End of.

A man to like, on several counts...

Miliband's new green helper

I shall follow now follow another so described: 'impeccable "green" credentials. He is also outspoken and not afraid to criticise the Government. With interest.

Bogey persons

Opposing wind farms should be socially taboo, says Ed Miliband

This should, technically, be under the ALT. ENERGY category, but I think I'll give it its own splash.

What the heck does that headline, and by association the words of a government minister, mean?

'Should be socially taboo'? Is he simple? Or just playing to the crowd at the premiere of the Age of Stupid which, a few blogs earlier I have stated I wish to watch, but am more than unimpressed that will not allow any dissenting commentary to enter their realms.

Opposing wind farms should be subject to reasoned debate, facts, objectivity and (what is left of it) democratic process. Plus...enviROI. Just because there's a big whirl thing that meets an EU target and a lobbyist's entreaties doesn't make it right.

Next thing you'll find is Ministers will go on air claiming that the court of public opinion should take precedence over the law....oh.

I think these things can and should be embraced, wherever and whenever practically and cost/eco-effectively possible. But then I don't live near any. I like the look of them. But I accept there are negatives, from noise (close up) to property prices being reduced. Such things cannot be dismissed in such a manner by breaking out of one's pod like something from 'Invasion of the Body Snatcher's and hissing 'Nimby' at folk who have other views, any more than one should throw around pejoratives like 'denier' or 'Treehugger'. Especially if thy are there and you are just passing by.

I'm with Voltaire here, and I while I may agree with much that Mr. M is trying to do, I think he has a darned doltish way of saying it.

What happens from the top...?

Hmn... fishy.

I am often moved to let things speak from themslves.

These two headlines from today's Indy might well serve:

Carbon cuts 'only give 50/50 chance of saving planet'*

followed by:

Darling vetoes plans for green revolution in snub to Mandelson

And this is... er... leadership? I might also add that these two pieces are tucked away on the environment section of a very minor broadsheet of limited readership, while hammer threast to stricken celebs preoccupy many more.

* Again breaking my 'no climate change' rule, I read the comments. I also read this. No wonder few have a clue what to think, and are rather put off finding out... and especially asking questions.

Mushroom time again

Kept in the dark. Fed... well, in the cause of coming to a view, not much of use.

I remain dubious about nuclear for a variety of reasons, articulated before, but mainly for the ongoing lack of guarantees for what happens 'down the road'. Space 1999 and all that.

But I do concede that, if on the other hand we are facing more immediate peril from the consequences of our energy addictions currently met by burning fossil fuels, with growing populations and recovering economies we are in between a rock an a hard place.

I am not really in the mood, or of a mind to go into all that throws up here, but it is complex, and I if that were not enough of a worry given the evident competencies of our current 'leaderships', the selfish, careerist, money-driven short-termism shown so far suggests that some things are often seen as just alternatives, rather than as part of a time-buying strategy on the road to stability.

However, or maybe because of this, this worries me...

Pro-nuclear Green candidate faces axe

And it worries me because of the politics. We are in an era of either/or, black and white, all or nothing. Nuance is not an option. Especially in the politico-media establishment.

My frustrations with the, in theory 'democratic' political process is now almost total. I have no faith that anything I do via my MP matters any more. And much of this is because too often I see him 'told' how to vote for party reasons rather than any hint of representing my views, or what he sees as the good of the county and country he represents.

Now I can see how the views of these individuals can clash with that of the party, and indeed the manifesto it needs to stand behind in campaigning, but there strikes me as something worrying about that last phrase: “We will be taking appropriate measures.”

D'oh!

Brainy children ‘likely to vote Green’

...research suggests.

'Nuff said.

CATEGORY - GREEN POLITICS

Plenty scattered about via labels (below) , but time to try and start a list as they arise:

GENERAL

CONSERVATIVES

Indy - How green are the Tories?

Telegraph - Cameroonie wonks plan reboot of environmental policy -

Conservativehome - NEW - Green taxes have been kicked into the long grass - Oooo...kkayyyy

GREENS

LABOUR

LIB DEMS

PLAID CYMRU

SNP

In the 'no'

In many ways this is more appropriate for the more political 'El Burro Hotay' sister blog.

Especially today, as our Dear Leader articulates his vision for the future (for the next 10 years?) at the Labour Party Conference.

Thing is, I have come to feel that people, myself often included, seem 'persuaded' by those who claim to know all (and actually know sod) above those honest enough to say they are not too sure, especially about things in the future which, often, and by obvious examples in the past, are hard to predict with accuracy.

Pity.

Thing is... are we really surprised?

Main parties 'reneging on green promises'

Well, we all know what a 'pol's promise' is owrth at best. Butthis could equally lurk in the 'Two E's" category as a reson if not excuse.

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.

Talking from on high

I agree with sentiment, but continue to question the abilities and qulifications of those who keep telling us 'we' need to cut back.

Now is not the time to abandon our ambition to be green

Oh dear.

This, and the comments it has generated, shows that whatever the value of the message(s), the current crop of elected, appointed and/or especially self-appointed messengers seem to be less than effective in getting them across.