... well made in today's Indy letters:
Sir: The Department of Education and Skills, in conjunction with the Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs, will this week begin distributing the Al Gore film, An Inconvenient Truth, to all 3,385 secondary schools in England.
According to the DfES, "influencing the opinions of children is crucial to developing a long-term view on the environment among the public" (press release, February 2007). This is an explicit admission by the Government that its intention in circulating the film is to indoctrinate children politically.
Such deliberate political indoctrination of children is contrary to the Education Act 2002, which at section 78 says the school curriculum for maintained schools is to be "balanced and broadly based", and section 79 requires the Secretary of State, local education authorities, governing bodies and headteachers to exercise their functions "with a view to securing that the curriculum for every maintained school satisfies the requirements of section 78".
Political spin is bad enough, but when we start brainwashing our own children we are finished.
I write as one concerned more than many about where we are headed, but beyond the question of legality have to also wonder if this is a bit of indocrination too far.
Showing posts with label LETTER. Show all posts
Showing posts with label LETTER. Show all posts
Monday, April 16, 2007
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Er... what she said
Janet Street-Porter: A song by Madonna won't save the world
I am guessing Ms. Street-Porter is not gunning for a VIP slot in the Green Room with the rest of the self-appointed Green 'E(for eco)-lite' (pronounced 'leet').
Took guts. Don't envy her chances with the canapes at the next London luvvie-fest she lobs up to, mind. When I first heard of this e-vent I felt like the potted plant in Hitchhikers Guide.
There are a few too many 'celebs' and media remoras with a vested interest in making this seem a lot more than what it is, and hence I have to question how it will serve to benefit my kids' future enviROI (stuff that gets actually DONE that lowers carbon emissions).
I even have to wonder whether the awareness aspect will actually outweigh the potential negatives that are already, and with some reason, being brought to bear. Here's hoping the protagonists have done their sums, hired the right guys who can be on message... and stay there. Remember, a planet is for life, and not just for a quick temporary ratings boost.
And so, I join her (if slightly lower and behind) on the parapet.
Letters - Nothing so far, but a great letter by a guy on the topic of dumping gulit on the kids to sort this mess out
Letters - Looks like they didn't like mine. Surprise
I am guessing Ms. Street-Porter is not gunning for a VIP slot in the Green Room with the rest of the self-appointed Green 'E(for eco)-lite' (pronounced 'leet').
Took guts. Don't envy her chances with the canapes at the next London luvvie-fest she lobs up to, mind. When I first heard of this e-vent I felt like the potted plant in Hitchhikers Guide.
There are a few too many 'celebs' and media remoras with a vested interest in making this seem a lot more than what it is, and hence I have to question how it will serve to benefit my kids' future enviROI (stuff that gets actually DONE that lowers carbon emissions).
I even have to wonder whether the awareness aspect will actually outweigh the potential negatives that are already, and with some reason, being brought to bear. Here's hoping the protagonists have done their sums, hired the right guys who can be on message... and stay there. Remember, a planet is for life, and not just for a quick temporary ratings boost.
And so, I join her (if slightly lower and behind) on the parapet.
Letters - Nothing so far, but a great letter by a guy on the topic of dumping gulit on the kids to sort this mess out
Letters - Looks like they didn't like mine. Surprise
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
My Friend's Electric... Dreams
I thought worth publishing in full as it (if true), puts what I have been banging on about for a long while as regards some 'eco'-cures and the media's reporting of same:
Letters: Electric cars
Electric cars will work only as limited urban transport
Published: 10 April 2007
Sir: Johann Hari sometimes talks sense but, on electric cars, he is talking through the back of his neck (Big Oil's vendetta against the electric car - Comment, 5 April). Battery-driven electric cars are charged with electricity from the mains, the majority of which is generated by fossil-fuelled power stations.
Electric cars would simply transfer the atmospheric pollution from the cars to the power stations.
If all road vehicles were switched to battery-driven electric it would require at least a 40 per cent increase in electricity-generating capacity. At present, we are struggling to achieve even 5 per cent of our electricity from renewable sources. But let us imagine we have Johann's magic battery.
At what rate could we charge? The largest appliance on our domestic circuit is the cooker, which might use 6kW at its greatest rate of use. Let us assume we could charge our battery at this rate for nine hours. We would then have stored 54kWh of electricity.
A modern car has an engine capable of producing a power output of anything from 100kW to 350kW. Most of the time, it is using only a fraction of that output. To drive up the motorway at 70mph probably requires something of the order of 45kW, depending on the size and weight of the car. Our 54kWh would enable us to drive for just one hour and 12 minutes.
We would need the ability to charge at a higher rate than is feasible on a domestic supply before we could think of using battery cars for anything other than limited urban use, no matter how clever our battery is.
Stan Ovshinsky's battery that Johann said "could run for 300 miles at 70mph on a single charge" would clearly require charging at about 20kW if it was charged in nine hours.
The exhaust pipe is merely in another place. So while in some ways going electric may be seen to be better than nothing, not going at all is better still. Try making a fun op-ed piece on that!
Why do so many 'solutions' involve making more stuff and simply adding to the problem?
ADDENDUM:
From Grist - - A more reasonable look at what is possible and desirable
This is truly inspirational.
I (and, I suspect, a few others - http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/04/my-friends-electric-dreams.html ) have had certain concerns on the promotion of electric power as non-polluting.
When it is in this form, aside from the consequences of manufacture, it seems a rare beacon of solar-powered reality in transport. To get a craft charged up, aloft and to its destination with no power input other than the sun is awesome.
It seems viable battery capacity is the only restriction on realising his dream of a 2 or 4-seat version, which is where the practicalities of personal or indeed small-scale cargo (couriers?) transportation kick in.
Now all we need in the UK is the weather. Mind you, looking out the window, and with a certain sense of irony global-warming-wise, that may soon not be such a problem.
Letters: Electric cars
Electric cars will work only as limited urban transport
Published: 10 April 2007
Sir: Johann Hari sometimes talks sense but, on electric cars, he is talking through the back of his neck (Big Oil's vendetta against the electric car - Comment, 5 April). Battery-driven electric cars are charged with electricity from the mains, the majority of which is generated by fossil-fuelled power stations.
Electric cars would simply transfer the atmospheric pollution from the cars to the power stations.
If all road vehicles were switched to battery-driven electric it would require at least a 40 per cent increase in electricity-generating capacity. At present, we are struggling to achieve even 5 per cent of our electricity from renewable sources. But let us imagine we have Johann's magic battery.
At what rate could we charge? The largest appliance on our domestic circuit is the cooker, which might use 6kW at its greatest rate of use. Let us assume we could charge our battery at this rate for nine hours. We would then have stored 54kWh of electricity.
A modern car has an engine capable of producing a power output of anything from 100kW to 350kW. Most of the time, it is using only a fraction of that output. To drive up the motorway at 70mph probably requires something of the order of 45kW, depending on the size and weight of the car. Our 54kWh would enable us to drive for just one hour and 12 minutes.
We would need the ability to charge at a higher rate than is feasible on a domestic supply before we could think of using battery cars for anything other than limited urban use, no matter how clever our battery is.
Stan Ovshinsky's battery that Johann said "could run for 300 miles at 70mph on a single charge" would clearly require charging at about 20kW if it was charged in nine hours.
The exhaust pipe is merely in another place. So while in some ways going electric may be seen to be better than nothing, not going at all is better still. Try making a fun op-ed piece on that!
Why do so many 'solutions' involve making more stuff and simply adding to the problem?
ADDENDUM:
From Grist - - A more reasonable look at what is possible and desirable
This is truly inspirational.
I (and, I suspect, a few others - http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/04/my-friends-electric-dreams.html ) have had certain concerns on the promotion of electric power as non-polluting.
When it is in this form, aside from the consequences of manufacture, it seems a rare beacon of solar-powered reality in transport. To get a craft charged up, aloft and to its destination with no power input other than the sun is awesome.
It seems viable battery capacity is the only restriction on realising his dream of a 2 or 4-seat version, which is where the practicalities of personal or indeed small-scale cargo (couriers?) transportation kick in.
Now all we need in the UK is the weather. Mind you, looking out the window, and with a certain sense of irony global-warming-wise, that may soon not be such a problem.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Next!
FOR sale: 5,000-odd mannequins, no heads or legs. All serious offers considered. Please contact Simon Wolfson, Next Plc, Leicester. Next is chucking out the old and bringing in the new. In an attempt to reverse falling like-for-like sales we are promised new ranges, new stores, a new logo, new adverts and even trendy new carrier bags. Not forgetting of course 5,900 new mannequins.
I'm guessing that this is one company not likely to be trumpeting the CSR greenwashing efforts this fiscal then?
If they can't sell them, we could still help find a home - JunkkYard.
I'm guessing that this is one company not likely to be trumpeting the CSR greenwashing efforts this fiscal then?
If they can't sell them, we could still help find a home - JunkkYard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)