QUOTE OF THE DAY - The best there is. Currently run by the worst.

From here,

'The virtue of democracy is that the temporary dictators so anointed can be removed without bloodshed.'

Oddly, I am fighting a rather one-sided (and not in an encouraging, 'here's comes the cavalry way') fight on another BBC blog with some forces that reckon a little bit of dictatorship might just be what's needed. to get things going their way.

It's the darndest thing, but my belief in freedom of speech and democratic process is currently outweighing my passion to set this planet to rights.

Actually it will be fine no matter what 'we' do, so I guess I am less keen on it being dominated by a bunch of GrEloi who, on current evidence, would make for pretty poor governors of most else that I also hold dear

3,000 words and a few more on Greenwashing

I was an engineer once.

Scott Adams was an engineer.

The ever excellent Dilbert is an engineer.

At the moment this one hit the mark, as I have found that some attempts at asking questions to establish enviROIs are getting met more and more by stupid 'you're just a Daily Mail reader' style comebacks from a way too powerful minority greeleet lobby empowered by media ownership and dogma over science. Just because a PR says it ticks a green box does not mean it is.

As it happens, I would like to know the answer to this one. Dilbert usually has a basis in fact, so is it possible Styrofoam may be 'better' than paper? All my instincts say not.

However, the overall message is, still on the money.

Stupid is as Stupid does

I am going to see the Age of Stupid.

I am going to do so because I have heard about it, it sounds interesting, it may be worth a gander and I'll learn something.

The producers must be thrilled.

However, they might not be so pleased that I am going with an eyebrow now cranked, and not in a good way. And it's their fault.

The rage of stupid

This bit, especially, did not help: the site's managers are taking no chances. Their comment box carries a legend that somewhat undermines this apparently glowing feedback. It reads: "Any comments from climate deniers/sceptics will be deleted."..the site's managers are taking no chances. "

That smacks of a slight lack of confidence from the off, and also suggests that balance may not be uppermost. Which means the science I see may not be the science there is.

You know, I may wait for a few more reviews where all 'sides' are allowed to comment free of censorship/agenda/narrative enhancing, etc, and then decide whether I'll go.

Now, was/is that the intention?

Civil exchanges online. A rare pleasure.

I got a reply (well, with a few score others) from a celeb jounro!

The piece in question is below, and I'd popped in a sarky one liner more to keep the author on his toes. He's better than most in the green arena, though can, has, does and will still err on being a bit 'thee and me' in the who's in and who's out of Greeleet VIPdom.

But I did swing to his defence a wee while ago when he came out the the nuclear bunker. Not so much for the nuclear bit, but for his right to speak.

Green shoots of recovery

I was just teasing (some of these posts can come across as a bit worthy), and actually really appreciate the fact that an author here a) reads what they have set in motion and, b) better yet takes the time to reply/engage. Few do. Major kudos.

However....

'marklynas
Oct 08 08, 3:18pm

- Junkketeer - We're talking pretty small beer, just a Shares ISA. Without revealing my entire personal finances, I ain't rich, despite having written a couple of excellent books which everyone on this site really ought to rush off and buy. (there, I have shown there is no better thing than repeated publicity)

- youngpretender - you're quite right, of course. RBS is horrible, and their investments in fossil fuels are indefensible. I'll offload those (small quantity of) shares just as soon as they regain some value...'

I, too, am pondering the penning of a eco-book, with all the recycled, natural-inked, 'just had to fly there to find out how flying there was killing us' pitfalls.

But with this being the Grauniad and all, and there being about 20 articles daily on what to do and, more controversially what NOT to do (or else) du jour, it must surely have occurred that fronting up on investing in a company that invests... etc.. was kind of what a lot of folk get lambasted for/finger-waved at by commentators here all the time. Bit like Mr. Monbiot lobbing up (he didn't I hope) in his new motor for the 'hundreds drive round the UK in cars to show how much fuel we can save by being more careful driving' irony event winner today.

Especially if many seem to figure they'll just have one last, wafer-thin PR-jolly to Antarctica to see.. er ... report on how tourism is killing the polar bears before the ice melts. Or hell freezes over. Or those shares gain enough value so a profit can be made first before any enviro-breast-beating kicks in on a per word basis.

Ain't easy, is it, caring about the future but also trying to be pragmatic? Keep up the good work.

I even had a category ready

This deserves its own gig. More so by being in the Guardian:

Elitist evangelists

I am hard-pressed to figure out what the £30k 'damage' was/is, but 'if you commit the crime, you do the time', etc, I guess.

However, this is one CiF I'll watch from the sidelines.

Telegraph - NEW - Climate change chicanery - The author is a major climate optimist, and hence all written should be viewed in this light but, if true, the point about the function of an expert witness in a legal trial is a good one, and I'd like that question on how two advocates came to be used in this role was allowed.

The higher you look down from, the poorer your view. Or chance of being heard.

Do you feel harassed by eco-snobs?

There’s rather a lot going on in here it’s hard to answer all at once, or simply.

For a start, there the definition of a ‘snob’, which is telling: ‘somebody who looks down on people considered to have inferior knowledge or tastes’.

This places knowledge WITH taste. But in matters environmental, they can often be exclusive.

I certainly feel frustrated by ill-informed, cynically media-stirred e-fashion victims leaping on distracting, minor carbon priority Planet Ban-it banwagons to the delight of those who should be taken task right now and more often for much worse.

That said, effecting social change though trying to influence behaviour for the better IS legitimate, and a bit of PR-influenced social pressure can often be of value... so long as it is valid, accurate and correctly targeted.

The problem is that so much is not, being simply knee-jerk, activist-agenda or politically-motivated public manipulation, ably supported by any media addicted to getting ratings building up an icon... and then getting more smashing it down if proven to be on a shaky pedestal.

Hence making the task of those working more diligently on more coherent, practical and probably more cost and enviROI effective measures, which the public can and might be persuaded to engage with, that more difficult.

So yes, I do have a concern on a backlash, thanks to the cack-handed simplistic messages being pumped out, and the dubious qualifications and motivations of the green-elite messengers so often associated with them.

Hence I think there is the social dimension inferred by the word ‘snob’, and a divide is being driven by the ‘My third car is a Prius’ persons who rather selectively cherry-pick their eco-target du jour at the expense of the broader challenges faced by more climatically significant (in total population) but less financially-insulated Fiesta Family.

That’s not to say we do not need to seek to effect necessary reductions and/or mitigations wherever possible. But by heavens I’d like to see it all done in a less divisive and patronising way than currently. And hence would make a plea for less TELLING each other what not to do and more incentive-driven PERSUADING each other what profit and fun-driven ways there can be to work together on this.

As a minor example, in your picture caption you lampoon Tesco, one presumes being shown up by the M&S/Daily Mail ‘campaign.’.

By my understanding they have long had a policy of giving card points for bringing old bags back, which seems to be a reward-based method for taking the things out of the loop, or at least away from the landfill.

I remain unclear as to the attraction in comparison of paying 5p, and how once used this bag ceases to have the potential to choke a turtle.

Equally, I am still trying to fully understand all the other options, with Charles Clover elsewhere suggesting not all ‘solutions’ bandied about might be as great as claimed.

But looking forward to getting my Eco-bag posted back from you guys. I’ll carry it with pride and endure the joshing with good nature, whilst hoping the cheery example I set might sway a few. Seems to work better than shouting or sneering.

CATEGORY - THE GREELEETS

New category. Stands for 'Green Elites', and isn't meant in a good way.

Don't mind anyone with money, power, privilege or media connections caring about the planet.

Do mind, awfully, when it comes across as just more than a little insincere, disconnected from reality, exclusive, up-a-pedestal, self-indulgent, etc...

And more about filling some column inches with one's life to impress one's mates, than any real effort at making a difference. Ok, yah?

Times - A green battle at home

Just wondering... does one know any eco-hapless couples who live in a Midlands flat, but whose weekend options might not have included hunting the lesser-spotted Bruni on the estate?