It's a funny old world. If, perhaps, a pretty complex and often not very nice one.
When I heard of her death, I was indeed saddened at the loss of someone who by any measure did, has and will have a real impact on how the cause of capitalism and environmentalism could go hand in hand for the common good.
In fact I'd applied to a Science Museum mentor thingie with the sole aim of trying to get some advice from her on how best to do this btter (mainly the making moeny bit). Sadly, now not to be.
But is surprises me just what else there was that made up the person and her deeds. Some not always as good as others. There were many who screamed betrayal when Body Shop got swallowed by a corporate giant, but I have to say I saw no problem at all. At worst it was hers to do with as she wished, but at best she was then in a position to effect greater change from within.
What I hadn't appreciated before were some of her other activist views which, if true, I could not honestly endorse.
Do these therefore taint how she should be remembered? Well, as I often bang on, it's hard these days to dissociate the messenger from the message, and if there are... distractions... maybe they may not be the best poster persons to choose.
I think I can be Solomonesque in this case. Divorcing some of her personal views and activist activities in other areas, I'd choose to remember a small shop that went on to be a global brand, based on the notion that people could be persuaded to buy 'better' products without guilt, nannying or threat. Simply by making the option appealing.
Brand republic - Speaking well of whom
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
West is West, but EAST... is best!
EAST magazine is rather good. It's fun, glossy, nicely written and, oddly but generously, free ( a bit like a certain website and blog I hear you say.... er... hello?).
Now that I have got the brown-nosing out of the way, please bear in mind that I have said this only now, and not before, mainly because I was only aware of one issue and had not got around to mentioning it, along with a few thousand other worthy aspects of note, such as February's newsletter.
Anyway, my latest edition has just come in, and perusing the online PDF copy my eye alighted on the not so small matter of their recent awards. Which I had decided was worth having a go at being a) prestigious, b) got us in front of some decent judges anyway and c) was free. And I must confess I then forgot all about it.
Well, golly-gosh and cor-blimey, lookee there (well, it's too small to see, but trust me it is - or go to the magazine site and register to read in A4 glory) - who do we see as a semi-finalist? And in good company ,too.
I just hope not too good company, as the shortlisted guys get a free invite, and at £200+ I kinda need to be in there to go. Which would be nice.
Wish us luck!
Celeb pity
I thought this - Celebrity Eco-Hypocritique - was going to be another media industry sulk about how their green parties are being spoiled by grumpy old commoners not being supportive enough of whatever jolly they deem we need.
But it is actually more thoughtful than that.
And, as always, some good comments pro and con to follow.
For some reason, I was moved to pitch in:
An interesting analysis, with equally interesting posts in response.
There is a slight sense of 'damned if you do; damned if you don't..' that makes it hard not to sympathise with the motives and probable frustrations of a passionate, committed 'activist' celeb.
I really felt sorry that someone such as Bono was copping so much flak because of who he was and what he earned, whilst being a man with a view almost being required to shut up and sing.
But then ego comes into play. What if by what they are doing they are not serving the greater enviROI or indeed the most effective message? They may well be genuine and have opinions and want to speak out or even do, but there are, sorry guys, bigger factors than what they want, and especially if that somehow needs to translate into column inches or airtime.
Sadly the good of intention will get tarred by the less so, especially when the PR machine/media support systems see opportunity. I have lost count of the number of slots where some blonde or buff gets wheeled on to give us 10 seconds of cause before we move on to 'so how's the new movie?'.
We are in an era when the messenger is more important than the message, so that messenger has to be pretty squeaky clean and on message. As pointed out, with the best will in the world that's hard to do when you are making squillions and few outlets exist to spent it on are that environmentally sound. Again the 'machine' has demands. Walking to the shops, buying domestic and holidaying in the back yard are hardly the stuff of glamour magazine front pages. There's the dilemma. If that's the job, then fine, but don't ask those who not enjoying such a lifestyle not to note that and only empathise with selected aspects of what is being shared by way of example.
Bob Geldof had a rather colourful view on how much more 'awareness of the problem' that we all needed when Live Earth was in the news. I would value an objective analysis of how it did indeed serve the actual aims. Were the collective greenhouse emissions of all involved (protagonists and audience) reduced as a consequence? Was the awareness raised (of?) positively and, more importantly, call to actions embraced?
Don't know about anywhere else, but here in the UK it was not the greatest example of motivation and publicity that one could have hoped for. Especially for any plugging the causes of green.
Hence the next effort in this mould, Planet Relief, as mooted by the BBC, didn't get off the ground, to the surprise of many in the media world just waiting for all the opportunities they would have had to feed off it. And some, with spectacular sour grapes, took to blaming all but their own inability to read the public mood for its downfall.
There was even an attempt to portray this as a victory for politically-motivated, climate denier-funded campaigning. Not so. But there were many from very committed environmental standpoints who simply didn't feel that such things were very effective, and may even set the cause back. Frankly the most damage I see to the whole cause of promoting a 'greener' lifestyle are those unelected, self-appointed spokespersons who for too long have enjoyed an un-earned position to tell 'us' what's good for us and, worse, brook no critique whatsoever. These days any doubts on the efficacy of some green scheme that may not be all it is claimed, especially when vindicated, are usually met with accusations in the same way the cry of '-ist' was thrown around in earlier times.
Interestingly, the BBC has cited the main reason for pulling Planet Relief was fact that their audience - the nation's Joe & Jill Average - had fed back that rather than another green elite party they'd really prefer balanced information on what's going on, and ways to cope within already pressurised calls on time and budget.
Why does a celeb NEED a private jet? They are cash rich and time poor. But if that's necessary to manage the demands of their chosen lifestyle, when it comes to how that example plays out then maybe they need to reassess, with their managers, their personal values of what is 'enough'. Make a few less movies, go on fewer tours... and don't earn as many millions as last year. Stay at home more. Travel slower. Buy better stuff and not only the latest and glitziest just because you can.
You'll set a better example and maybe even enjoy life more. And rather than issuing press release about it via your people, let it be simply found out about and appreciated by getting 'out there' organically rather than stuffing it down other folk's throats as part of a rounded CV.
Living a more eco lifestyle is, for now, a mostly more expensive choice and/or in complement a less income-acquisitive one. Many don't have the luxury of limitless funds to match up to what some can afford to do with chump change. Do it, fine. Let it be shared, well, ok. Preach from a shaky pedestal... fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy ride.
A guy took exception, and unfortunately in a rather selective manner that also embraced the 'brook no criticism' stance that I find very tiresome. I had to reply:
Who is tearing who down? This seems a rather grotesque - and all too common - knee-jerk dismissal to the notion of simply asking any questions on the efficacy of certain aspects of promoting environmental good practice. Plus having an opinion.
As it happens, I think that Leo seems to be one of the more substantial 'celebrities' trying to make their mark under the difficult, but realistic spotlight that has been acknowledged.
Then again, to those who don't fly so much, and usually if we do once a year in cattle class, taking 'A' trip to Europe by commercial air came across as a tad... unfortunate as a comeback. Though the question, in the spirit of things at the time, was not very nice. But that... is the reality of the system. So understand it to play it to best advantage.
I guess I am keen on making a change, but I do wonder who else with green intentions is simultaneously trying to 'destroy' whose.... own leaders? I think I missed that election.
As to real points, I did sit in a [demographically sensitive location definition deleted] with 20 of my [demographically sensitive group definition deleted] chums who tolerate what I bang on about all the time. The result was that the concert set back my efforts. They didn't buy it and thought the way it was set up was silly. It seemed to give 'em a good excuse to revert to more profligate ways as 'those that are telling [them] how to behave' seemed to be doing so from a 'not us, of course, that wouldn't be practical to do our jobs' camp'. Some business persons not in the ents/media world do need to travel to stay employed, too. So who is left? It's a tough sell to some poor family looking at a guilt-tripped (there's an idea for a travel agent) 2 weeks a year in the sun to be fed 'Here's XX in her designer T an entourage at such and such a camp in 'Exotic place 101', especially when combo'd with their latest kid-buying sleepover in a 5* resort a world away down the road.
You may have a different experience. That was mine and it influenced my view on this as a mechanism of change.
As to only supporting uncritically those who do pollute and depend on us to use them to do so, I'm afraid I will need to remain in favour of phased reduction.
I can recommend Leo Hickman's book, Final Call, which does a good job of looking at the issues surrounding 'our' need and/or desire to travel, but also as quickly as possible. More efficient engines are indeed a worthy instrument of mitigation and delay, and I am sure will allow more of a movement to commercial craft that can offer the necessary facilities to lure some from 'going private'.
But it is actually more thoughtful than that.
And, as always, some good comments pro and con to follow.
For some reason, I was moved to pitch in:
An interesting analysis, with equally interesting posts in response.
There is a slight sense of 'damned if you do; damned if you don't..' that makes it hard not to sympathise with the motives and probable frustrations of a passionate, committed 'activist' celeb.
I really felt sorry that someone such as Bono was copping so much flak because of who he was and what he earned, whilst being a man with a view almost being required to shut up and sing.
But then ego comes into play. What if by what they are doing they are not serving the greater enviROI or indeed the most effective message? They may well be genuine and have opinions and want to speak out or even do, but there are, sorry guys, bigger factors than what they want, and especially if that somehow needs to translate into column inches or airtime.
Sadly the good of intention will get tarred by the less so, especially when the PR machine/media support systems see opportunity. I have lost count of the number of slots where some blonde or buff gets wheeled on to give us 10 seconds of cause before we move on to 'so how's the new movie?'.
We are in an era when the messenger is more important than the message, so that messenger has to be pretty squeaky clean and on message. As pointed out, with the best will in the world that's hard to do when you are making squillions and few outlets exist to spent it on are that environmentally sound. Again the 'machine' has demands. Walking to the shops, buying domestic and holidaying in the back yard are hardly the stuff of glamour magazine front pages. There's the dilemma. If that's the job, then fine, but don't ask those who not enjoying such a lifestyle not to note that and only empathise with selected aspects of what is being shared by way of example.
Bob Geldof had a rather colourful view on how much more 'awareness of the problem' that we all needed when Live Earth was in the news. I would value an objective analysis of how it did indeed serve the actual aims. Were the collective greenhouse emissions of all involved (protagonists and audience) reduced as a consequence? Was the awareness raised (of?) positively and, more importantly, call to actions embraced?
Don't know about anywhere else, but here in the UK it was not the greatest example of motivation and publicity that one could have hoped for. Especially for any plugging the causes of green.
Hence the next effort in this mould, Planet Relief, as mooted by the BBC, didn't get off the ground, to the surprise of many in the media world just waiting for all the opportunities they would have had to feed off it. And some, with spectacular sour grapes, took to blaming all but their own inability to read the public mood for its downfall.
There was even an attempt to portray this as a victory for politically-motivated, climate denier-funded campaigning. Not so. But there were many from very committed environmental standpoints who simply didn't feel that such things were very effective, and may even set the cause back. Frankly the most damage I see to the whole cause of promoting a 'greener' lifestyle are those unelected, self-appointed spokespersons who for too long have enjoyed an un-earned position to tell 'us' what's good for us and, worse, brook no critique whatsoever. These days any doubts on the efficacy of some green scheme that may not be all it is claimed, especially when vindicated, are usually met with accusations in the same way the cry of '-ist' was thrown around in earlier times.
Interestingly, the BBC has cited the main reason for pulling Planet Relief was fact that their audience - the nation's Joe & Jill Average - had fed back that rather than another green elite party they'd really prefer balanced information on what's going on, and ways to cope within already pressurised calls on time and budget.
Why does a celeb NEED a private jet? They are cash rich and time poor. But if that's necessary to manage the demands of their chosen lifestyle, when it comes to how that example plays out then maybe they need to reassess, with their managers, their personal values of what is 'enough'. Make a few less movies, go on fewer tours... and don't earn as many millions as last year. Stay at home more. Travel slower. Buy better stuff and not only the latest and glitziest just because you can.
You'll set a better example and maybe even enjoy life more. And rather than issuing press release about it via your people, let it be simply found out about and appreciated by getting 'out there' organically rather than stuffing it down other folk's throats as part of a rounded CV.
Living a more eco lifestyle is, for now, a mostly more expensive choice and/or in complement a less income-acquisitive one. Many don't have the luxury of limitless funds to match up to what some can afford to do with chump change. Do it, fine. Let it be shared, well, ok. Preach from a shaky pedestal... fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy ride.
A guy took exception, and unfortunately in a rather selective manner that also embraced the 'brook no criticism' stance that I find very tiresome. I had to reply:
Who is tearing who down? This seems a rather grotesque - and all too common - knee-jerk dismissal to the notion of simply asking any questions on the efficacy of certain aspects of promoting environmental good practice. Plus having an opinion.
As it happens, I think that Leo seems to be one of the more substantial 'celebrities' trying to make their mark under the difficult, but realistic spotlight that has been acknowledged.
Then again, to those who don't fly so much, and usually if we do once a year in cattle class, taking 'A' trip to Europe by commercial air came across as a tad... unfortunate as a comeback. Though the question, in the spirit of things at the time, was not very nice. But that... is the reality of the system. So understand it to play it to best advantage.
I guess I am keen on making a change, but I do wonder who else with green intentions is simultaneously trying to 'destroy' whose.... own leaders? I think I missed that election.
As to real points, I did sit in a [demographically sensitive location definition deleted] with 20 of my [demographically sensitive group definition deleted] chums who tolerate what I bang on about all the time. The result was that the concert set back my efforts. They didn't buy it and thought the way it was set up was silly. It seemed to give 'em a good excuse to revert to more profligate ways as 'those that are telling [them] how to behave' seemed to be doing so from a 'not us, of course, that wouldn't be practical to do our jobs' camp'. Some business persons not in the ents/media world do need to travel to stay employed, too. So who is left? It's a tough sell to some poor family looking at a guilt-tripped (there's an idea for a travel agent) 2 weeks a year in the sun to be fed 'Here's XX in her designer T an entourage at such and such a camp in 'Exotic place 101', especially when combo'd with their latest kid-buying sleepover in a 5* resort a world away down the road.
You may have a different experience. That was mine and it influenced my view on this as a mechanism of change.
As to only supporting uncritically those who do pollute and depend on us to use them to do so, I'm afraid I will need to remain in favour of phased reduction.
I can recommend Leo Hickman's book, Final Call, which does a good job of looking at the issues surrounding 'our' need and/or desire to travel, but also as quickly as possible. More efficient engines are indeed a worthy instrument of mitigation and delay, and I am sure will allow more of a movement to commercial craft that can offer the necessary facilities to lure some from 'going private'.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Talk is cheap. Not even talking is, therefore...
Me, I'm into reducing waste. So, enough already on my plate. That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it in not leaping into this one: Greens need to grasp the nettle: aren't there just too many people?
Frankly, between the article and the posts (never seen so many either edited or deleted by the moderator - passions running high, I guess), the whole issue has been pretty well thrashed out.
However, it was not until the end that I caught one who tried to answer the question, and did so quite well, I thought, for all the good it does us:
'There's no profit, politically or economically in population reduction. It's laughable to suggest that people would accept this, as the green lobby and government are only too aware . 'Green taxes', however, will potentially bring in billions of pounds for the Exchequer and private finance, the public will begrudgingly feel they're doing their bit to save the planet and we can all go home and have a nice cup of tea.'
More milk, vicars?
Frankly, between the article and the posts (never seen so many either edited or deleted by the moderator - passions running high, I guess), the whole issue has been pretty well thrashed out.
However, it was not until the end that I caught one who tried to answer the question, and did so quite well, I thought, for all the good it does us:
'There's no profit, politically or economically in population reduction. It's laughable to suggest that people would accept this, as the green lobby and government are only too aware . 'Green taxes', however, will potentially bring in billions of pounds for the Exchequer and private finance, the public will begrudgingly feel they're doing their bit to save the planet and we can all go home and have a nice cup of tea.'
More milk, vicars?
APEC - a step forward or just so much hot air?
Some say that the APEC meeting in Sydney was a huge success, others moot that its outputs, as least as far as climate change mitigation are concerned, are no more than a load of hot air.
As reported by Reuters, many environmental groups have labeled Australian Prime Minister John Howard's 'Sydney Declaration' useless; "Green groups immediately dismissed the 'Sydney distraction' as so much hot air adding to the warming of the globe." Although some level of agreement appears to have been reached, the final declaration wording is "voluntary and non-binding", so it seems to permit some of the planet's worst emitters to carry on regardless.
What I thought quite funny was Dubya's accidental referral to 'OPEC' rather than 'APEC'; he obviously still has oil on his mind in a big way.
And it was interesting to note that the biggest amount of international media coverage was not for the Sydney Declaration itself, but for the stunt pulled by ABC TV's staff:-
"Posing as the Canadian delegation, members of ABC TV's The Chaser show drove a 'motorcade' through two checkpoints to within metres of Bush's hotel -- one of them made up to look like Osama bin Laden, and the designation 'Insecurity' written on their convention passes. Police arrested 11 of them".
As reported by Reuters, many environmental groups have labeled Australian Prime Minister John Howard's 'Sydney Declaration' useless; "Green groups immediately dismissed the 'Sydney distraction' as so much hot air adding to the warming of the globe." Although some level of agreement appears to have been reached, the final declaration wording is "voluntary and non-binding", so it seems to permit some of the planet's worst emitters to carry on regardless.
What I thought quite funny was Dubya's accidental referral to 'OPEC' rather than 'APEC'; he obviously still has oil on his mind in a big way.
And it was interesting to note that the biggest amount of international media coverage was not for the Sydney Declaration itself, but for the stunt pulled by ABC TV's staff:-
"Posing as the Canadian delegation, members of ABC TV's The Chaser show drove a 'motorcade' through two checkpoints to within metres of Bush's hotel -- one of them made up to look like Osama bin Laden, and the designation 'Insecurity' written on their convention passes. Police arrested 11 of them".
Sunday, September 09, 2007
Bird Brains
'Sustainable' flood defences call Odd that such a sensible notion should come from such a quarter, if not first, but to the exception of any other I have seen elsewhere.
By way of an update I still remain unanswered in my attempts to render my home safer form any future water-related issues.
By way of an update I still remain unanswered in my attempts to render my home safer form any future water-related issues.
Carrot Tops
I just watched the newly-celeb billed (why?) Andrew Marr show, with one guest being Zac Goldsmith, who was there to explain the new Conservative proposals on the environment.
These are by all accounts discussed in the papers today and I will add links as I come across them later. And then there is the report itself, which is due soon.
I must say how well he came across, though Andrew Marr is not exactly the most challenging of interviewers, and was encouraged by the commitment to 'carrot first, stick second' initiatives.
One obvious one, though smart in its thinking, is to put the incentives at the best point. Hence lowering stamp duty at the point of a house being exchanged in a sale, when there is the best opportunity to upgrade.
Just... I wonder about the logistics of assessment to ensure it is carried out as intended. Also, as one who is committed to eco-upgrades at every opportunity, I remain concerned at forthcoming incentives to those who improve, which leaves hanging whether those who have already may see less reward for having done so. Targets based on improvements are OK, but not if they favour those who hold back to get a better bonus. That is bad enviROI as well as being unfair.
He was also quite clear on the matter of celebrity 'awareness', which was refreshing. By birth and position he cannot help to be who and where he is, but as a multi-millionaire his stated beliefs came across as quite Fiesta Family friendly as to Prius Person Pontificating.
BBC - Tory group urges 'green rebate' - nice to see the FoE on baord
Indy - Tories bite tax bullet in battle for the green vote
Guardian - Tory green package targets short-haul flights and landfill
These are by all accounts discussed in the papers today and I will add links as I come across them later. And then there is the report itself, which is due soon.
I must say how well he came across, though Andrew Marr is not exactly the most challenging of interviewers, and was encouraged by the commitment to 'carrot first, stick second' initiatives.
One obvious one, though smart in its thinking, is to put the incentives at the best point. Hence lowering stamp duty at the point of a house being exchanged in a sale, when there is the best opportunity to upgrade.
Just... I wonder about the logistics of assessment to ensure it is carried out as intended. Also, as one who is committed to eco-upgrades at every opportunity, I remain concerned at forthcoming incentives to those who improve, which leaves hanging whether those who have already may see less reward for having done so. Targets based on improvements are OK, but not if they favour those who hold back to get a better bonus. That is bad enviROI as well as being unfair.
He was also quite clear on the matter of celebrity 'awareness', which was refreshing. By birth and position he cannot help to be who and where he is, but as a multi-millionaire his stated beliefs came across as quite Fiesta Family friendly as to Prius Person Pontificating.
BBC - Tory group urges 'green rebate' - nice to see the FoE on baord
Indy - Tories bite tax bullet in battle for the green vote
Guardian - Tory green package targets short-haul flights and landfill
Saturday, September 08, 2007
Money, money, money
Commy time again! At first I was ready to dismiss this - Call the fat cats’ bluff and tax their preposterous pay fairly - as another Peter Hainsian bit of political rabble-rousing (only this time in a journalistic, sociological way) drag-down nonsense, but I feel it is well considered and worth reading.
A bit like population, this is a BIG issue with little incentive for any statespersonlike individual (if such exists) to tackle, but the fact of the matter seems to me that if there are a lot of folk with a load more money than they can handle (celebs, big City types, ex-PMs), they are going to splurge in a consumer-driven orgy of excess spending on stuff and travel just to validate having it all.
Which, in turn, the media will serve and feed off. Which in turn, makes it seem unlikely that those less blessed will see why they should cut back.
The circle of strife?
A bit like population, this is a BIG issue with little incentive for any statespersonlike individual (if such exists) to tackle, but the fact of the matter seems to me that if there are a lot of folk with a load more money than they can handle (celebs, big City types, ex-PMs), they are going to splurge in a consumer-driven orgy of excess spending on stuff and travel just to validate having it all.
Which, in turn, the media will serve and feed off. Which in turn, makes it seem unlikely that those less blessed will see why they should cut back.
The circle of strife?
What a waste?
This - Poor communication plagues waste industry - from Recycling and Waste World looks a promising start to helping the public.... if it gets heeded.
It's good to read some in the waste management industry feel the issue of communications with the consumer needs addressing, but I'd suggest that shouldering it as indicated is bearing too much of the burden alone.
Every aspect of waste, from the moment it gets dug out the ground as raw materials to the moment it is returned to it as landfill (or not) at point of disposal, needs to be properly coordinated at national level. Beyond simple improvements in enviROI, only then can the consumer be properly expect to play their - highly necessary - part.
There surely have to be coherent, complementary, KISS explanations at point of sale (and associated advertising) agreed and shared by all involved in the chain that leads to purchase and beyond - government, LA, quangos, manufacturers, retailers - as well as those tasked to deal with it all.
The current system(s) regarding healthy food show how different information may tick some boxes but not best serve the optimum desired result. Once we have food miles and/or carbon footprints in the several competing ways already embraced and/or mooted, plus a litter of marketing logos (Future Friendly looking like the latest player), I half expect to have a CDR attached to my Smarties just to explain all it’s deemed necessary I know!
And while online resources can do a lot, and recognizing the first quoted case is more industry based, simply pointing at a website cannot be the solution. Especially as one holds a bottle in one’s hand over the bin. So Hampshire CC is to be commended and I look forward to seeing how they address this issue.
Currently, as I look at a pack with at least three types of plastic on it, and up a slot on the skip that says such as 'HDPE 1 only' on it, I remain unsure as to what to do for the best and don't feel much has been made easy to help me... to help.
So, for now, I'll just find a reuse for it.
It's good to read some in the waste management industry feel the issue of communications with the consumer needs addressing, but I'd suggest that shouldering it as indicated is bearing too much of the burden alone.
Every aspect of waste, from the moment it gets dug out the ground as raw materials to the moment it is returned to it as landfill (or not) at point of disposal, needs to be properly coordinated at national level. Beyond simple improvements in enviROI, only then can the consumer be properly expect to play their - highly necessary - part.
There surely have to be coherent, complementary, KISS explanations at point of sale (and associated advertising) agreed and shared by all involved in the chain that leads to purchase and beyond - government, LA, quangos, manufacturers, retailers - as well as those tasked to deal with it all.
The current system(s) regarding healthy food show how different information may tick some boxes but not best serve the optimum desired result. Once we have food miles and/or carbon footprints in the several competing ways already embraced and/or mooted, plus a litter of marketing logos (Future Friendly looking like the latest player), I half expect to have a CDR attached to my Smarties just to explain all it’s deemed necessary I know!
And while online resources can do a lot, and recognizing the first quoted case is more industry based, simply pointing at a website cannot be the solution. Especially as one holds a bottle in one’s hand over the bin. So Hampshire CC is to be commended and I look forward to seeing how they address this issue.
Currently, as I look at a pack with at least three types of plastic on it, and up a slot on the skip that says such as 'HDPE 1 only' on it, I remain unsure as to what to do for the best and don't feel much has been made easy to help me... to help.
So, for now, I'll just find a reuse for it.
Friday, September 07, 2007
A blonde. A cause. A new book/film/TV series.
I'm kind of losing count of how many Estuary blondes there are on the roster, but the more they crank out the more causes can be found. And as Green is the new 'du jour', so another I have to try and figure out gets launched on the box.
This one is something like Future Friendly, and will need tracking down as I don't recall in the slot much else before we moved to the real point: the 'goss..
Actually the blonde plugging (who showers and doesn't bath, apparently. Which is nice) tried gamefully to get back on the subject a few times, despite the blonde asking doing the usual 'so you have a cause? Well, great, now about the film and what was it like to lick Tom's...'
At least it's not their job to trivialise such an important issue.
ADDENDUM - Didn't take long...
Guardian - Future friendly? - Just guessing mind, but even they don't seem quite as enamoured at the Gaurdian as do the BBC. Remind me again, whose job is it to report the news and not....
Is the best default they have 'let's have a thing and get celebs along to talk about it to raise awareness 'n stuff'? Again?
Is this the same one I saw Tamsin Outhwaite promoting on, I believe, the BBC? That would be the BBC who is not in the business of... [fill in here]? And certainly not to trivialise huge issues in the name of celebrity ratings fests.
At least she tried to stretch to a few things about helping the planet in (she doesn't bath, apparently. Showers only. Which is nice) before she and her blonde oppo got into her new book/play/series/whatever, which, I must say, seemed to be what all parties present seemed really more interested in.
This one is something like Future Friendly, and will need tracking down as I don't recall in the slot much else before we moved to the real point: the 'goss..
Actually the blonde plugging (who showers and doesn't bath, apparently. Which is nice) tried gamefully to get back on the subject a few times, despite the blonde asking doing the usual 'so you have a cause? Well, great, now about the film and what was it like to lick Tom's...'
At least it's not their job to trivialise such an important issue.
ADDENDUM - Didn't take long...
Guardian - Future friendly? - Just guessing mind, but even they don't seem quite as enamoured at the Gaurdian as do the BBC. Remind me again, whose job is it to report the news and not....
Is the best default they have 'let's have a thing and get celebs along to talk about it to raise awareness 'n stuff'? Again?
Is this the same one I saw Tamsin Outhwaite promoting on, I believe, the BBC? That would be the BBC who is not in the business of... [fill in here]? And certainly not to trivialise huge issues in the name of celebrity ratings fests.
At least she tried to stretch to a few things about helping the planet in (she doesn't bath, apparently. Showers only. Which is nice) before she and her blonde oppo got into her new book/play/series/whatever, which, I must say, seemed to be what all parties present seemed really more interested in.
Sleeping Partners?
Or strange bedfellows? Ok, enough of the bed metaphors. Well, one more. I don't really care who hooks up with whom and will sleep easier so long as the intent is genuine and the results tangible.
Much has been made of Johan Eliasch's move (note: I'm pretty sure they mean 'donate' and not denote in the write-up) from Tory to Labour camp, and as is they way with the navel-gazing, feral beasties of the Westminster Village the environmental issues have taken second billing to the 'defection'.
But if... big IF... this means a guy who does seem to be smart and committed gets to whisper in Mr. Brown's ear then it looks a pretty good thing. If... Mr. Brown listens.
It will be interesting to see how this trend for multi-millionaires advising political leadership on motivating the masses in matters green pans out.
In this case, as I have always seen merit in Cool Earth as a quick, big fix (well, delay), I am hopeful.
BBC - Ex-Tory donor to be Brown adviser
BBC - A welcome hand - to which i added this above, with a couple of additions:
But if... big IF... this means a guy who does seem to be smart and committed gets to whisper in Mr. Brown's ear (rather obvious point about talking in opposition vs. doing in government taken) then it looks a pretty good thing. If... Mr. Brown listens.
It will be interesting to see how this trend for multi-millionaires advising political leadership on motivating the masses in matters green pans out. The whole jet/offset thing is a pity, as the concept of buying off excess shouldn't be allowed to fly, but I guess I can live with it so long as Mr. Eliasch doesn't end up on air at every stage telling us what to do even though 'it would not be, like, you know, practical for him not to'.
In this case, as I have always seen merit in Cool Earth as a quick, big fix (well, delay) after the Newsnight piece, I am hopeful.
Much has been made of Johan Eliasch's move (note: I'm pretty sure they mean 'donate' and not denote in the write-up) from Tory to Labour camp, and as is they way with the navel-gazing, feral beasties of the Westminster Village the environmental issues have taken second billing to the 'defection'.
But if... big IF... this means a guy who does seem to be smart and committed gets to whisper in Mr. Brown's ear then it looks a pretty good thing. If... Mr. Brown listens.
It will be interesting to see how this trend for multi-millionaires advising political leadership on motivating the masses in matters green pans out.
In this case, as I have always seen merit in Cool Earth as a quick, big fix (well, delay), I am hopeful.
BBC - Ex-Tory donor to be Brown adviser
BBC - A welcome hand - to which i added this above, with a couple of additions:
But if... big IF... this means a guy who does seem to be smart and committed gets to whisper in Mr. Brown's ear (rather obvious point about talking in opposition vs. doing in government taken) then it looks a pretty good thing. If... Mr. Brown listens.
It will be interesting to see how this trend for multi-millionaires advising political leadership on motivating the masses in matters green pans out. The whole jet/offset thing is a pity, as the concept of buying off excess shouldn't be allowed to fly, but I guess I can live with it so long as Mr. Eliasch doesn't end up on air at every stage telling us what to do even though 'it would not be, like, you know, practical for him not to'.
In this case, as I have always seen merit in Cool Earth as a quick, big fix (well, delay) after the Newsnight piece, I am hopeful.
Will they walk the walk ......
..... as well as they talk the talk?
This rather interesting snippet from offshore-technology.com which reports on Robert Olson, Chairman of ExxonMobil no less, speaking in Aberdeen about "the need for innovation in one of the most contentious issues affecting the offshore industry – climate change."
"Describing how ExxonMobil is taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, he stated that the company is supporting breakthrough technological research to help 'reduce the 'gap' tomorrow'."
As a major financial supporter of research to fund the denier's side in the climate change debate, this strikes me as almost a case of the leopard changing its spots.
I guess we'll have to wait and see just how this plays out.
This rather interesting snippet from offshore-technology.com which reports on Robert Olson, Chairman of ExxonMobil no less, speaking in Aberdeen about "the need for innovation in one of the most contentious issues affecting the offshore industry – climate change."
"Describing how ExxonMobil is taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, he stated that the company is supporting breakthrough technological research to help 'reduce the 'gap' tomorrow'."
As a major financial supporter of research to fund the denier's side in the climate change debate, this strikes me as almost a case of the leopard changing its spots.
I guess we'll have to wait and see just how this plays out.
Biting both ways
I am still engaging, perhaps more than is good for my RSI, with Biased BBC. They do seem to catch some howlers worth noting. As a check and balance they can be useful in highlighting errant reporting.
However, I can also see how a small drop of ink can stain a large bowl. Hence a comment of global warming, and its reporting (or, in this case, as I felt it, not), required a reply:
I also came up with some more bon mots I like:
PPCC - Person-produced climate change
MWCC or PPPCC - man-worsened/Personal-pollution promoting climate change
A virus comes to Europe and it's all the fault of global warming.
I am still on a steep learning curve (which I suspect will soon be near vertical), so forgive my remaining unsure on certain factual aspects of this issue.
There's climate change (which I believe most accept is happening. And, probably, for the worse (definitions vary, and indeed death tolls can be skewed in historical comparisons by virtue of there being more people on the ground to cop a natural disaster. Equally perceptions, as there are A LOT MORE reporters on the ground to capture every terrible moment).
Then there's global warming. Which to me is not the best term because while most 'stuff' is getting laid at its door, and it seems a convenient if broad way to refer to an overall trend, on a local and day-to-day basis there's an awful lot that is cold and wet. So I wish it were not used so much, or as it usually is. Especially by BBC reporters, if it was used in such as the Scottish radio report (and I must confess I did not see it in the mosquito piece).
So let's move to man-made (sorry to be un-PC (Person-produced?) climate change. This seems to 'accept' that the activities of man are pretty much responsible, exclusively, for the whole deal. In astronomical and geographical terms, especially considering the forces involved, I find such an absolute unlikely. And I don't think it has yet been proven. So to use it would seem... premature.
Which brings me to my own, favoured, definition: man-worsened (Personal-pollution promoting?) climate change. This is the area where the fun seems to be, if you enjoy mutually dependent extremes such big oil funded 'deniers' and 'activists' en route to endless conferences in Bali knocking spots off each other with single statistics and lone hyperlinks.... fun.
To nail my colours to the mast, I'm still floating in the middle, erring on the more 'green' corner, if only because rationally I can't see that bazillions (and counting) of folk polluting (emissions always seems so coy) away on finite ground and into finite air space cannot but have an unhappy end point. So, speaking of points, I figure maybe it's best to consider the tipping one a tad more proactively before it's too late. In this case 'I told you so' to the do-nothing brigade will be of little comfort to me or my kids. Conversely, they may not feel being wrong to be a huge problem in the great scheme of things, so it’s a lose-lose.
But it's all very complicated made more so with, in the modern world, democratic institutions populated by those more interested in process than product, and now near paralysed by the power and extent of media (new and old) and its ability to sway the masses. There is not a statesperson amongst them and, probably, even if there were, the moment they tried to do anything radical based on sincere beliefs, the ratings whores would ensure they were hounded out before you could say 'ist', ‘inger’, ‘zi’.... or 'tomorrow's headlines'.
So we're down to information, education, and, where possible (yawning chasm in there), persuasion. And as I like winnable wars, I’m a big woos by sticking more to doing something about reducing waste and leaving the waaaaay bigger issues to braver folk. I just ask that they don’t get tempted to cut corners doing what they think is best for me as my experience is that, even if it is (which it may not be) getting caught out negates and often pushes things further back.
I have to say that in this case, having read the piece, I was more simply educated and informed about a fact of biology that by my own extrapolation is likely to attributable to climate change.
No more. No less. But the additional info is appreciated, thanks.
Equally the subsequent fact (forgive me for now having to let it remain as un attributed and unconfirmed, though it sounds convincing) from Archduke on sea levels.
However, I can also see how a small drop of ink can stain a large bowl. Hence a comment of global warming, and its reporting (or, in this case, as I felt it, not), required a reply:
I also came up with some more bon mots I like:
PPCC - Person-produced climate change
MWCC or PPPCC - man-worsened/Personal-pollution promoting climate change
A virus comes to Europe and it's all the fault of global warming.
I am still on a steep learning curve (which I suspect will soon be near vertical), so forgive my remaining unsure on certain factual aspects of this issue.
There's climate change (which I believe most accept is happening. And, probably, for the worse (definitions vary, and indeed death tolls can be skewed in historical comparisons by virtue of there being more people on the ground to cop a natural disaster. Equally perceptions, as there are A LOT MORE reporters on the ground to capture every terrible moment).
Then there's global warming. Which to me is not the best term because while most 'stuff' is getting laid at its door, and it seems a convenient if broad way to refer to an overall trend, on a local and day-to-day basis there's an awful lot that is cold and wet. So I wish it were not used so much, or as it usually is. Especially by BBC reporters, if it was used in such as the Scottish radio report (and I must confess I did not see it in the mosquito piece).
So let's move to man-made (sorry to be un-PC (Person-produced?) climate change. This seems to 'accept' that the activities of man are pretty much responsible, exclusively, for the whole deal. In astronomical and geographical terms, especially considering the forces involved, I find such an absolute unlikely. And I don't think it has yet been proven. So to use it would seem... premature.
Which brings me to my own, favoured, definition: man-worsened (Personal-pollution promoting?) climate change. This is the area where the fun seems to be, if you enjoy mutually dependent extremes such big oil funded 'deniers' and 'activists' en route to endless conferences in Bali knocking spots off each other with single statistics and lone hyperlinks.... fun.
To nail my colours to the mast, I'm still floating in the middle, erring on the more 'green' corner, if only because rationally I can't see that bazillions (and counting) of folk polluting (emissions always seems so coy) away on finite ground and into finite air space cannot but have an unhappy end point. So, speaking of points, I figure maybe it's best to consider the tipping one a tad more proactively before it's too late. In this case 'I told you so' to the do-nothing brigade will be of little comfort to me or my kids. Conversely, they may not feel being wrong to be a huge problem in the great scheme of things, so it’s a lose-lose.
But it's all very complicated made more so with, in the modern world, democratic institutions populated by those more interested in process than product, and now near paralysed by the power and extent of media (new and old) and its ability to sway the masses. There is not a statesperson amongst them and, probably, even if there were, the moment they tried to do anything radical based on sincere beliefs, the ratings whores would ensure they were hounded out before you could say 'ist', ‘inger’, ‘zi’.... or 'tomorrow's headlines'.
So we're down to information, education, and, where possible (yawning chasm in there), persuasion. And as I like winnable wars, I’m a big woos by sticking more to doing something about reducing waste and leaving the waaaaay bigger issues to braver folk. I just ask that they don’t get tempted to cut corners doing what they think is best for me as my experience is that, even if it is (which it may not be) getting caught out negates and often pushes things further back.
I have to say that in this case, having read the piece, I was more simply educated and informed about a fact of biology that by my own extrapolation is likely to attributable to climate change.
No more. No less. But the additional info is appreciated, thanks.
Equally the subsequent fact (forgive me for now having to let it remain as un attributed and unconfirmed, though it sounds convincing) from Archduke on sea levels.
Thursday, September 06, 2007
The best question yet!
From today's Guardian article by Guy Edwards.
Sometimes you just happen across something where the question that you knew you always wanted to ask, but couldn't quite phrase it just in the terms you wanted to, is asked for you! So here it is ........
"How can it be that one man is able to persuade the UK parliament to go to war in Iraq based on weak intelligence, causing thousands of people to protest on the streets, and at the same time millions of people cannot convince their own leaders to take the threat of climate change seriously when even the chief scientific adviser to the government says it is a far greater threat than international terrorism."
Quite! And deserving of some valid answers!
"Brown's recent decision to downgrade the ministerial committee on energy and the environment has demonstrated an uneasy truth, that there is little substance behind 'Brown's green facade'."
You heard it here first! See last paragraph of Met Office Prediction.
"We are running out of time. Brown must take it upon himself to act - putting a stop to climate change requires the power of strong leadership."
Well, let's see if Ol' Golden is up to the task. I have my doubts.
Sometimes you just happen across something where the question that you knew you always wanted to ask, but couldn't quite phrase it just in the terms you wanted to, is asked for you! So here it is ........
"How can it be that one man is able to persuade the UK parliament to go to war in Iraq based on weak intelligence, causing thousands of people to protest on the streets, and at the same time millions of people cannot convince their own leaders to take the threat of climate change seriously when even the chief scientific adviser to the government says it is a far greater threat than international terrorism."
Quite! And deserving of some valid answers!
"Brown's recent decision to downgrade the ministerial committee on energy and the environment has demonstrated an uneasy truth, that there is little substance behind 'Brown's green facade'."
You heard it here first! See last paragraph of Met Office Prediction.
"We are running out of time. Brown must take it upon himself to act - putting a stop to climate change requires the power of strong leadership."
Well, let's see if Ol' Golden is up to the task. I have my doubts.
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
What a relief?
I was never too convinced about it, so I welcome the BBC climate special decision.
What I don't like is how it now plays out.
I don't think I'm any 'wing'. In fact I have the notion that the best way to soar higher is to have both, and evenly balanced.
But by virtue of trying to do a bunch of stuff to help my kids' futures, I guess I could be thought of as an 'Environmental campaigner' of sorts. My thoughts on the decision were however not solicited. Who activist and writer Mark Lynas is and what qualifies him to speak on behalf of those who 'do care more than others' (I would not presume, hoping we all do equally) about our planet and its direction is not clear.
And while I may be vociferous, and small, I am not a climate 'sceptic' lobbying against taking action.
I just thought this effort sounded like another, misconceived green elite luvvie jolly like the last one. And like that it sucked big time whilst not helping me at all in my mission to inspire the public to see environmentally good practice not as a chore, or a guilt-trip or a nanny-duty, but as a bit of collective (we're in this together) fun and often a way to save some money. If I can sneak in a bit of reduction (ie: self-sacrifice), I will try though. Sneaky like that.
Hence to the point that 'poor ratings in the UK and elsewhere for July's Live Earth concert fuelled the internal belief that the public do not like being "lectured to" on climate change', it was hard to see how the new effort was going to improve matters. From the moment I switched on Live Earth the choice of Mr. Ross as presenter, and his musings, along with those 'guests' wheeled in to do the 'I recycle and offset' mantra whilst 'not quite finding it practical to cut back personally, as such' on the trappings only immense wealth and celebrity can bring, I felt most of the messengers were ill serving the message. That a Spice took but one week to go from 'doing it for her baby' to getting a personal private jet (as reported) kinda sealed the notion thereafter. And handed papers (tab and broad of all hues) a blinder that eclipsed most else.
Hence I think we might value again such as one Mr. Geldof's views on just how much more 'awareness' and 'consciousness-raising' of this nature we can cope with. Or the planet afford.
I happen to share the idea that elevated levels of greenhouse gases from fossil fuel burning and land clearance may well be raising temperatures around the world, and believe that clear, honest education, balanced information, example and incentive are the ways to sway public opinion and behaviour to help mitigate it. It is all urgent, so the temptation to cut corners 'for our own good' exists, but in this new media age whatever temporary gain you may get from 'enhanced truth', it will be set back tenfold when it gets caught out. As it does and will.
A ratings fest with a 'green elite only' green room that most outside the jetset and its reporting chums won't be invited to, on top of the last, was not my top choice for the money and logistical expertise that could be brought to bear, sorry.
So to try and plonk me in some group just because I have other, 'not ours' views certainly ain't helping the cause. Argue with me for sure, but only as you also get on and 'do' something real to mitigate or reduce the production of unnecessary green house gasses that doesn't owe more to massive self/career interest. Falling back on invoking a collection of 'ing's', 'ist's' and 'zi's' as the toys don't get put back in the pram won't get me on side one jot.
If, that is, your primary concern really is helping make a better future.
ADDENDUM:
I'd missed this before - No line - the comments are telling. The usual 'tis/t'isn't selective hyperlink quoting BOFDI/GAAC exchanges to be sure, but an awful lot who just don't like to be patronised. I'd have loved to have been here - How green is TV?. The synopsis end line sums it up.
ADDENDUM 2:
This... sucks: Global warming: Too hot to handle for the BBC - I can live with the line they are taking; that's their prerogative and how I accord value to the paper's place in the debate. But that most of this front page piece was either lifted from the same PR as the BBC version, or lifted from that if it was the originator, is just plain shoddy journalism and editorial. And proves some claims that this is a mantra to be chanted and not an issue to be considered.
My respect for the Indy, and trust that it's MMGW reporting can be viewed in any way as objective, is shot.
It's so depressing. This issue is tearing folk apart, but I have to say that the main culprits are those who thing they know better, will brook no critique, and savage any in the most childish terms if they don't get their way. I would have hoped those genuine in a desire to help save this planet would not so easily find themselves amongst them.
Guardian - Getting the balance wrong - Funny the word 'balance' is used
I had to reply, and hence evolved a prvious post:
At least I can rely on CiF, between the post and a mix of subsequent comments, to try and suss out a bit of balance.
Not so sure about elsewhere.
http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2934318.ece
The text seems to be almost interchangeable with the BBC Online piece:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6979596.stm
Where did this originate (I'm presuming the BBC piece) that it is shared so (pretty lazy journalism by the Indy, in which case) between these separate media entities?
I remain less than impressed that any criticism of this particular jolly gets such dismissal as a 'right wing conspiracy', and to try and paint it that way is serving the environmental cause poorly.
There were many, like me, who just didn't feel this was the best way to do it. From the moment I read Ross was top billing, after his and his mates' efforts before, I knew whatever it was about, helping my kids' future was not top of the agenda. And, as noted... it bombed. Badly. I was dubious before, took no pleasure in seeing the fall out, but made a reasoned call on this effort to consider the likely outcome of the next in its planned form, as outlined by those proposing it (who now are throwing a load of toys around with near zero self-analysis of what has taken place, is happening and how they could evolve their strategy to better assist their aims in future).
I have a really vain hope this will not simply turn into an excuse for yet another fruitless slanging match between those who have massive agendas pro and con the notion of MMGW, with selective facts and cited hyperlinks that 'prove' whatever you fancy, and ways to mitigate adverse effects, at the expense of reasoned ways to discuss, move on and DO something that can have an impact that can still work within the current climate of debate... or debate of climate.
Telling me what I am, when I am not, especially in knee-jerk frustration, is not the best way to do it. I'd like to think the BBC made an editorial call on certain pertinent facts of science, life and the media world.... not in response to 'pressure' from boogey men.
I personally think the climate IS changing.
And whatever man is doing, we are not likely to be helping (6 billion and counting folk with improving economies will need to live on something, eat something else and doubtless travel a lot socially and/or professionally to do it all. There has to be a tipping point logically as the area of land and volume of air is finite to cope with such hyperbolic growth and consequent poll... emissions).
Hence, I figure a bit of mitigation, if not reduction is not a bad thing to get on board with now.
However, we live on a mostly free planet with a bunch of connected folk with their own opinions.
So they need to be persuaded. democratically and with balanced argument. Not by telling them they are deluded. And certainly not by patronising them or cherry-picking what they get to decide with, 'for their own good'.
And certainly not by dishing up an already discredited notion to serve a bunch of less than credible messengers to parrot a message that many seem unable to live by example personally, as, 'well, it's not really practical, y'know'.
Then sulking for England when a green room/elite jolly doesn't get the rapturous support expected, and often demanded without question in the name of gr..atings. It may play well with Prius Person, but I didn't see it sway Fiesta Family much. And they need to be invited on board as they are still the majority, don't all have 4x4s, don't live next a tube or all night bus and usually only buy bottled water when they are flooded.
But stuff, for sure, does (I believe) need doing.
So where in all this are the political establishment? Or is the Nu-, and so far highly successful, strategy of saying nothing and being nowhere (save non-controversial or feel-good events), paralysing those voted in to lead, and handle the course of our futures?
Guardian - Impartiality is a turn-off
'...audiences sit up and take notice. If that means more work for Jonathan Ross, then sign the cheque.'
If this is referring to Planet Relief R.I.P, one would rather question the wisdom of pitching it in the first place on the back of the actual results derived in 'making audiences sit up and take notice' (much less acting) that was Live Earth. Anchored, as I recall, by one less than inspiring (by way of example) cheque-cashing celeb.
I rather think the way most of the general public viewed this new green jolly, punted for the exclusive benefit of the luvvies in entertainment-related PR and their media hangers-on, was the reason it died. Not any lack of desire to do right by our kids' futures.
Missing that point puts most crying into their Fairtrade lattes at the loss of yet another 'awareness opportunity' right out of step with the reality most folk face... but are prepared to act upon sensibly to rectify.
I believe the BBC feedback was that most people simply wanted to be better informed. Not told what some feel is good for them.
BBC -
"(Only fair to say that the Independent was critical of the BBCs decision to drop Planet Relief - they must have felt very let down.)"
Global warming: Too hot to handle for the BBC - http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2934318.ece
Well, yes. But they did have some things in common:
The BBC climate special decision - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6979596.stm
Replete with such choice shared comments as this:
"The only reason why this became an issue is that there is a small but vociferous group of climate 'sceptics' lobbying against taking action.'
Nothing to do with Live Earth being a total bomb, and the new version being pitched imaginatively as a total duplicate, replete with the 'line-up' of celebrity presenters to really get the common folk to empathise with their glowing examples of restraint. So I would suggest there were other reasons, and some of the loudest voices came from those truly concerned with getting consensus on positive, practical actions to mitigate possible catastrophic climate change before any tipping point may be reached. I can live with 'told you so' if I'm wrong for erring on the side of caution. But 'living with' anything may be tricky if such as I get entitled to say it instead.
Finally, if I am right this 'toys out of pram' reaction ignores either feedback or maybe even a poll of viewers to the effect that they'd like to get the facts, ta very much, and not another luvvie green-in to further boost the 'awareness'.
BBC - Relief relief
ADDENDUM - NEW - Planet Relief redux
What I don't like is how it now plays out.
I don't think I'm any 'wing'. In fact I have the notion that the best way to soar higher is to have both, and evenly balanced.
But by virtue of trying to do a bunch of stuff to help my kids' futures, I guess I could be thought of as an 'Environmental campaigner' of sorts. My thoughts on the decision were however not solicited. Who activist and writer Mark Lynas is and what qualifies him to speak on behalf of those who 'do care more than others' (I would not presume, hoping we all do equally) about our planet and its direction is not clear.
And while I may be vociferous, and small, I am not a climate 'sceptic' lobbying against taking action.
I just thought this effort sounded like another, misconceived green elite luvvie jolly like the last one. And like that it sucked big time whilst not helping me at all in my mission to inspire the public to see environmentally good practice not as a chore, or a guilt-trip or a nanny-duty, but as a bit of collective (we're in this together) fun and often a way to save some money. If I can sneak in a bit of reduction (ie: self-sacrifice), I will try though. Sneaky like that.
Hence to the point that 'poor ratings in the UK and elsewhere for July's Live Earth concert fuelled the internal belief that the public do not like being "lectured to" on climate change', it was hard to see how the new effort was going to improve matters. From the moment I switched on Live Earth the choice of Mr. Ross as presenter, and his musings, along with those 'guests' wheeled in to do the 'I recycle and offset' mantra whilst 'not quite finding it practical to cut back personally, as such' on the trappings only immense wealth and celebrity can bring, I felt most of the messengers were ill serving the message. That a Spice took but one week to go from 'doing it for her baby' to getting a personal private jet (as reported) kinda sealed the notion thereafter. And handed papers (tab and broad of all hues) a blinder that eclipsed most else.
Hence I think we might value again such as one Mr. Geldof's views on just how much more 'awareness' and 'consciousness-raising' of this nature we can cope with. Or the planet afford.
I happen to share the idea that elevated levels of greenhouse gases from fossil fuel burning and land clearance may well be raising temperatures around the world, and believe that clear, honest education, balanced information, example and incentive are the ways to sway public opinion and behaviour to help mitigate it. It is all urgent, so the temptation to cut corners 'for our own good' exists, but in this new media age whatever temporary gain you may get from 'enhanced truth', it will be set back tenfold when it gets caught out. As it does and will.
A ratings fest with a 'green elite only' green room that most outside the jetset and its reporting chums won't be invited to, on top of the last, was not my top choice for the money and logistical expertise that could be brought to bear, sorry.
So to try and plonk me in some group just because I have other, 'not ours' views certainly ain't helping the cause. Argue with me for sure, but only as you also get on and 'do' something real to mitigate or reduce the production of unnecessary green house gasses that doesn't owe more to massive self/career interest. Falling back on invoking a collection of 'ing's', 'ist's' and 'zi's' as the toys don't get put back in the pram won't get me on side one jot.
If, that is, your primary concern really is helping make a better future.
ADDENDUM:
I'd missed this before - No line - the comments are telling. The usual 'tis/t'isn't selective hyperlink quoting BOFDI/GAAC exchanges to be sure, but an awful lot who just don't like to be patronised. I'd have loved to have been here - How green is TV?. The synopsis end line sums it up.
ADDENDUM 2:
This... sucks: Global warming: Too hot to handle for the BBC - I can live with the line they are taking; that's their prerogative and how I accord value to the paper's place in the debate. But that most of this front page piece was either lifted from the same PR as the BBC version, or lifted from that if it was the originator, is just plain shoddy journalism and editorial. And proves some claims that this is a mantra to be chanted and not an issue to be considered.
My respect for the Indy, and trust that it's MMGW reporting can be viewed in any way as objective, is shot.
It's so depressing. This issue is tearing folk apart, but I have to say that the main culprits are those who thing they know better, will brook no critique, and savage any in the most childish terms if they don't get their way. I would have hoped those genuine in a desire to help save this planet would not so easily find themselves amongst them.
Guardian - Getting the balance wrong - Funny the word 'balance' is used
I had to reply, and hence evolved a prvious post:
At least I can rely on CiF, between the post and a mix of subsequent comments, to try and suss out a bit of balance.
Not so sure about elsewhere.
http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2934318.ece
The text seems to be almost interchangeable with the BBC Online piece:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6979596.stm
Where did this originate (I'm presuming the BBC piece) that it is shared so (pretty lazy journalism by the Indy, in which case) between these separate media entities?
I remain less than impressed that any criticism of this particular jolly gets such dismissal as a 'right wing conspiracy', and to try and paint it that way is serving the environmental cause poorly.
There were many, like me, who just didn't feel this was the best way to do it. From the moment I read Ross was top billing, after his and his mates' efforts before, I knew whatever it was about, helping my kids' future was not top of the agenda. And, as noted... it bombed. Badly. I was dubious before, took no pleasure in seeing the fall out, but made a reasoned call on this effort to consider the likely outcome of the next in its planned form, as outlined by those proposing it (who now are throwing a load of toys around with near zero self-analysis of what has taken place, is happening and how they could evolve their strategy to better assist their aims in future).
I have a really vain hope this will not simply turn into an excuse for yet another fruitless slanging match between those who have massive agendas pro and con the notion of MMGW, with selective facts and cited hyperlinks that 'prove' whatever you fancy, and ways to mitigate adverse effects, at the expense of reasoned ways to discuss, move on and DO something that can have an impact that can still work within the current climate of debate... or debate of climate.
Telling me what I am, when I am not, especially in knee-jerk frustration, is not the best way to do it. I'd like to think the BBC made an editorial call on certain pertinent facts of science, life and the media world.... not in response to 'pressure' from boogey men.
I personally think the climate IS changing.
And whatever man is doing, we are not likely to be helping (6 billion and counting folk with improving economies will need to live on something, eat something else and doubtless travel a lot socially and/or professionally to do it all. There has to be a tipping point logically as the area of land and volume of air is finite to cope with such hyperbolic growth and consequent poll... emissions).
Hence, I figure a bit of mitigation, if not reduction is not a bad thing to get on board with now.
However, we live on a mostly free planet with a bunch of connected folk with their own opinions.
So they need to be persuaded. democratically and with balanced argument. Not by telling them they are deluded. And certainly not by patronising them or cherry-picking what they get to decide with, 'for their own good'.
And certainly not by dishing up an already discredited notion to serve a bunch of less than credible messengers to parrot a message that many seem unable to live by example personally, as, 'well, it's not really practical, y'know'.
Then sulking for England when a green room/elite jolly doesn't get the rapturous support expected, and often demanded without question in the name of gr..atings. It may play well with Prius Person, but I didn't see it sway Fiesta Family much. And they need to be invited on board as they are still the majority, don't all have 4x4s, don't live next a tube or all night bus and usually only buy bottled water when they are flooded.
But stuff, for sure, does (I believe) need doing.
So where in all this are the political establishment? Or is the Nu-, and so far highly successful, strategy of saying nothing and being nowhere (save non-controversial or feel-good events), paralysing those voted in to lead, and handle the course of our futures?
Guardian - Impartiality is a turn-off
'...audiences sit up and take notice. If that means more work for Jonathan Ross, then sign the cheque.'
If this is referring to Planet Relief R.I.P, one would rather question the wisdom of pitching it in the first place on the back of the actual results derived in 'making audiences sit up and take notice' (much less acting) that was Live Earth. Anchored, as I recall, by one less than inspiring (by way of example) cheque-cashing celeb.
I rather think the way most of the general public viewed this new green jolly, punted for the exclusive benefit of the luvvies in entertainment-related PR and their media hangers-on, was the reason it died. Not any lack of desire to do right by our kids' futures.
Missing that point puts most crying into their Fairtrade lattes at the loss of yet another 'awareness opportunity' right out of step with the reality most folk face... but are prepared to act upon sensibly to rectify.
I believe the BBC feedback was that most people simply wanted to be better informed. Not told what some feel is good for them.
BBC -
"(Only fair to say that the Independent was critical of the BBCs decision to drop Planet Relief - they must have felt very let down.)"
Global warming: Too hot to handle for the BBC - http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2934318.ece
Well, yes. But they did have some things in common:
The BBC climate special decision - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6979596.stm
Replete with such choice shared comments as this:
"The only reason why this became an issue is that there is a small but vociferous group of climate 'sceptics' lobbying against taking action.'
Nothing to do with Live Earth being a total bomb, and the new version being pitched imaginatively as a total duplicate, replete with the 'line-up' of celebrity presenters to really get the common folk to empathise with their glowing examples of restraint. So I would suggest there were other reasons, and some of the loudest voices came from those truly concerned with getting consensus on positive, practical actions to mitigate possible catastrophic climate change before any tipping point may be reached. I can live with 'told you so' if I'm wrong for erring on the side of caution. But 'living with' anything may be tricky if such as I get entitled to say it instead.
Finally, if I am right this 'toys out of pram' reaction ignores either feedback or maybe even a poll of viewers to the effect that they'd like to get the facts, ta very much, and not another luvvie green-in to further boost the 'awareness'.
BBC - Relief relief
ADDENDUM - NEW - Planet Relief redux
And the question goes 'Pop' to a resounding sleince again
I make my point by this time being silent (ish): Stop procreating, or the baby gets it
I had finger poised over computer to weigh in when I read this: 'I don't have any bright ideas, either. So, what would you do?'
Stumped. At least in a PC-age where such discussions don't just get you no where, there are 'ist' laws against a lot and 'zi' fingers for the rest to make it 'there be dragon's' territory. Which is why, I suspect, those who might, even some tasked to do so by an electorate expecting leadership, don't fancy 'going there'.
So... aren't plastic carrier bags sooo last year?
I had finger poised over computer to weigh in when I read this: 'I don't have any bright ideas, either. So, what would you do?'
Stumped. At least in a PC-age where such discussions don't just get you no where, there are 'ist' laws against a lot and 'zi' fingers for the rest to make it 'there be dragon's' territory. Which is why, I suspect, those who might, even some tasked to do so by an electorate expecting leadership, don't fancy 'going there'.
So... aren't plastic carrier bags sooo last year?
Unless I'm missing something
As part of my 'if we have more and more bean-counters being carried by fewer and fewer bean makers...' question, we have: Caution doesn't pay
The public sector is a pretty broad church, and kicking off with underpaid nurses kinda focuses on but one area a tad.
And no matter what looks rosy now, there is the small matter of the pensions kicking in, which as it stands looks like being funded by about six folk actually making stuff and the rest in 'the public sector' and equally well-looked-after quangos assessing, monitoring etc, on their backs.
At which point yes, a well-paid nurse or two may be necessary to handle the fall out... er... down.
Odd to be on the side of Gordon, though.
The public sector is a pretty broad church, and kicking off with underpaid nurses kinda focuses on but one area a tad.
And no matter what looks rosy now, there is the small matter of the pensions kicking in, which as it stands looks like being funded by about six folk actually making stuff and the rest in 'the public sector' and equally well-looked-after quangos assessing, monitoring etc, on their backs.
At which point yes, a well-paid nurse or two may be necessary to handle the fall out... er... down.
Odd to be on the side of Gordon, though.
Well, they asked... about Aunty
Relaunching bbc.co.uk
The BBC is looking for digital agencies to help it redesign BBC Online to encourage user -generated content and give it a more web 2.0 feel (a.... what!!!?). What should it overhaul?
Well there's the trust thing, see.
Will what content I generate as a user get even acknowledged, much less used? And if it does will it be 'moderated' or edited?
Otherwise, for this content creator, the duck is dead.
And why I tend to reply on places like this rather more than on the BBC (Newsnight blog excepted, so far).
The BBC is looking for digital agencies to help it redesign BBC Online to encourage user -generated content and give it a more web 2.0 feel (a.... what!!!?). What should it overhaul?
Well there's the trust thing, see.
Will what content I generate as a user get even acknowledged, much less used? And if it does will it be 'moderated' or edited?
Otherwise, for this content creator, the duck is dead.
And why I tend to reply on places like this rather more than on the BBC (Newsnight blog excepted, so far).
Green is so now, dah'ling.
I don't argue with the statement of the first line to this - Linda Loudermilk Blends Green and Gold - at all: Environmentalism and luxury are recurring themes appearing everywhere from mass fashion to designer brands to exclusive couture collections.
But reading the rest was hard to do without more than the twitch of an eyebrow at all involved in writing such tosh and repeating it without tongues very much in cheeks.
As far as I can assess, almost all to do with “eco-couture” is greencloaking of the highest order.
I, for one, have not before heard of the “Luxury Eco Stamp of Approval” which is “an accreditation given to the top echelon of certain products, services and business processes,” and “involves detailed review of a company’s product, manufacturing processes, energy uses, labor practices, and environmental impacts as well as a product’s aesthetic design and luxury-quality status.” And wonder what its provenance is.
ADDENDUM:
No sooner do I print this, but I get in this (and simply cut 'n paste - my eyebrow twitch above covers it, too, though this is more considered. Though 'looking into' doth not a great leap forward make:) from Her Maj's Govt PR: Starting on the road to sustainable clothing
Representatives from the fashion, clothing, and textile industry as
well as environmental and ethical groups are meeting today for the
first time to look at how they can work with government to improve
the sustainability of clothing throughout its life cycle.
Opening the event, Joan Ruddock, Minister for Climate Change,
Biodiversity and Waste, said:
"Increasingly, consumers really care about the environment and the
social impacts associated with clothing. And clothes, almost more
than any other product, fill magazines and get column inches. Not
only are consumers really getting their teeth into this, but fashion
journalists are increasingly keeping pace with the green game.
"There are plenty of examples of people in the industry already
seeing sustainability as an opportunity, not a threat. There are
people taking an active role in ethical sourcing, designing and
producing clothing throughout the supply chain.
"That's why Defra is aiming to work collaboratively with the clothing
and fashion industry to improve the sustainability of clothing."
Speaking at the event, Katharine Hamnett, one of the industry's most
ethical and environmentally aware designers, said:
"Sustainable clothing doesn't have to be more expensive. It can be
more affordable and it should be more affordable."
Clothing, across its life cycle, generates a range of environmental,
social and economic impacts - with the growth in fast fashion and
consumption being a key factor in this.
In 2006, UK clothing and textiles produced up to two million tonnes
of waste, 3.1 million tonnes of CO2 and 70 million tonnes of waste
water. Clothing imports into the EU as a whole now account for 42
per cent of the global market. In the UK only 10 per cent of our
clothing is manufactured at home, the rest is imported.
Following this event, the clothing and fashion industry will be
invited to be involved in developing the sustainable clothing roadmap
coordinated by Defra. The roadmap examines all stages of clothing's
life cycle (from raw materials to end of life), charts the
environmental and social impacts arising at each stage, and proposes
ways of limiting those impacts where most effective.
Notes to Editors:
1. UK clothing consumption is high at approximately 2 million tonnes
(£23 billion) per annum. For the period 1996-2005, consumer
expenditure on clothing and textiles has grown 34%, with predicted
demand increases.
2. The fast/discount fashion/value clothing sector accounts for one
fifth of the UK market and has doubled its growth during 1999-2006.
3. In 2006, UK clothing and textile impacts included up to 1.5-2
million tonnes of waste, 3.1 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent and 70
million tonnes of waste water generated.
4. In terms of its economic impact, clothing is a high value sector
globally worth over £500 billion. It contributes to 7% of world
exports and employs approximately 26 million people, supporting a
significant number of economies and individual incomes around the
world.
5. Just 10% of clothing consumed within the UK is manufactured here.
The UK textile and clothing industry is small in comparison to the
global industry, accounting for approximately 0.78% of UK GDP, 3.3%
of UK manufacturing (valued at £9.5 billion) and employing
approximately 170,000.(1)
6. Further information is available here
7. Katherine Hamnett's video address is available here
But reading the rest was hard to do without more than the twitch of an eyebrow at all involved in writing such tosh and repeating it without tongues very much in cheeks.
As far as I can assess, almost all to do with “eco-couture” is greencloaking of the highest order.
I, for one, have not before heard of the “Luxury Eco Stamp of Approval” which is “an accreditation given to the top echelon of certain products, services and business processes,” and “involves detailed review of a company’s product, manufacturing processes, energy uses, labor practices, and environmental impacts as well as a product’s aesthetic design and luxury-quality status.” And wonder what its provenance is.
ADDENDUM:
No sooner do I print this, but I get in this (and simply cut 'n paste - my eyebrow twitch above covers it, too, though this is more considered. Though 'looking into' doth not a great leap forward make:) from Her Maj's Govt PR: Starting on the road to sustainable clothing
Representatives from the fashion, clothing, and textile industry as
well as environmental and ethical groups are meeting today for the
first time to look at how they can work with government to improve
the sustainability of clothing throughout its life cycle.
Opening the event, Joan Ruddock, Minister for Climate Change,
Biodiversity and Waste, said:
"Increasingly, consumers really care about the environment and the
social impacts associated with clothing. And clothes, almost more
than any other product, fill magazines and get column inches. Not
only are consumers really getting their teeth into this, but fashion
journalists are increasingly keeping pace with the green game.
"There are plenty of examples of people in the industry already
seeing sustainability as an opportunity, not a threat. There are
people taking an active role in ethical sourcing, designing and
producing clothing throughout the supply chain.
"That's why Defra is aiming to work collaboratively with the clothing
and fashion industry to improve the sustainability of clothing."
Speaking at the event, Katharine Hamnett, one of the industry's most
ethical and environmentally aware designers, said:
"Sustainable clothing doesn't have to be more expensive. It can be
more affordable and it should be more affordable."
Clothing, across its life cycle, generates a range of environmental,
social and economic impacts - with the growth in fast fashion and
consumption being a key factor in this.
In 2006, UK clothing and textiles produced up to two million tonnes
of waste, 3.1 million tonnes of CO2 and 70 million tonnes of waste
water. Clothing imports into the EU as a whole now account for 42
per cent of the global market. In the UK only 10 per cent of our
clothing is manufactured at home, the rest is imported.
Following this event, the clothing and fashion industry will be
invited to be involved in developing the sustainable clothing roadmap
coordinated by Defra. The roadmap examines all stages of clothing's
life cycle (from raw materials to end of life), charts the
environmental and social impacts arising at each stage, and proposes
ways of limiting those impacts where most effective.
Notes to Editors:
1. UK clothing consumption is high at approximately 2 million tonnes
(£23 billion) per annum. For the period 1996-2005, consumer
expenditure on clothing and textiles has grown 34%, with predicted
demand increases.
2. The fast/discount fashion/value clothing sector accounts for one
fifth of the UK market and has doubled its growth during 1999-2006.
3. In 2006, UK clothing and textile impacts included up to 1.5-2
million tonnes of waste, 3.1 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent and 70
million tonnes of waste water generated.
4. In terms of its economic impact, clothing is a high value sector
globally worth over £500 billion. It contributes to 7% of world
exports and employs approximately 26 million people, supporting a
significant number of economies and individual incomes around the
world.
5. Just 10% of clothing consumed within the UK is manufactured here.
The UK textile and clothing industry is small in comparison to the
global industry, accounting for approximately 0.78% of UK GDP, 3.3%
of UK manufacturing (valued at £9.5 billion) and employing
approximately 170,000.(1)
6. Further information is available here
7. Katherine Hamnett's video address is available here
The value of research
A lot revolves around research. Which probably explains why it is such a vast industry.And why so many reply upon it to help in what they do. From those with a point to make, to those with ratings to drive up.
On these pages I have quoted some, if usually with a caution as to origins, and methodologies, etc, so let's just say I treat most with a large dose of salt.
That said, Blogger has created a poll function that looks a giggle, so maybe Junkk.com can get in on the act to.
Amongst many considerations, one I may not have mentioned before is how the pollsters vet the answers. All too often, and especially if done by public contribution, and even more so by an online amount of effort, the results must almost inevitably be skewed not just by who gets asked, but who can be bothered (or fund) the time to fill the things out.
Take this one. On the promise of getting the results, I got cracking, and on the first page was fine with some multiple-choice (though I usually hit a wall when none apply and I want to argue that the question sucks) stuff on the environment. But then I hit going through a few score of individuals, giving each a rating, and could not just jump on because a) I didn't know and b) didn't care. So as it expected too much of me I gave up.
I imagine those who are listed there may be more inspired to devote the time, or get others to help.
In which case, what value?
More questions than answers
Not just the Indy (though Cheap Shirts is what prompts this post), in this 'we're listening (but not hearing, much less saying anything if it doesn't suit)' age I often wonder whether the number of questions posed is matched by an equal number of answers.
Sir: We are advised that we can buy polo shirts for our children for school for £1 (Save and Spend, 1 September). Would The Independent also like to advise us where these shirts are made and how much those who make them are paid?
Sir: We are advised that we can buy polo shirts for our children for school for £1 (Save and Spend, 1 September). Would The Independent also like to advise us where these shirts are made and how much those who make them are paid?
Wine - the barometer of global warming
This from the Arizona Republic, reports on French viticulturists who are harvesting their grape crops ever earlier each year.
"The evidence, scrawled in black ink, is the first day of the annual grape harvest for the past three decades. In 1978, it was Oct. 16. In 1998, the date was Sept. 14. This year, harvesting started Aug. 24 - the earliest ever recorded, not only in Mure's vineyards but in the entire Alsace wine district of northeastern France."
"Throughout the wine-producing world, from France to South Africa to California, vintners are in the vanguard of confronting the impact of climate change. Rising temperatures are forcing unprecedented early harvests, changing the tastes of the best-known varieties of wine and threatening the survival of centuries-old winegrowing regions."
It seems that vines are one of the most sensitive of crops when it comes to even slight temperature increases, and some growers are now having to doctor their wines with acidic compounds to prevent them becoming too sweet.
As the harvesting dates get earlier each year, the barometer that is wine, shows that the climate is indeed warming significantly.
"The evidence, scrawled in black ink, is the first day of the annual grape harvest for the past three decades. In 1978, it was Oct. 16. In 1998, the date was Sept. 14. This year, harvesting started Aug. 24 - the earliest ever recorded, not only in Mure's vineyards but in the entire Alsace wine district of northeastern France."
"Throughout the wine-producing world, from France to South Africa to California, vintners are in the vanguard of confronting the impact of climate change. Rising temperatures are forcing unprecedented early harvests, changing the tastes of the best-known varieties of wine and threatening the survival of centuries-old winegrowing regions."
It seems that vines are one of the most sensitive of crops when it comes to even slight temperature increases, and some growers are now having to doctor their wines with acidic compounds to prevent them becoming too sweet.
As the harvesting dates get earlier each year, the barometer that is wine, shows that the climate is indeed warming significantly.
If you want to get people to sign up to a pledge to fight global warming .......
.... offer them a half price Big Mac!
On online offer of a half price McDonald's Big Mac actually brought down a Japanese government website server as thousands tried to fill in the pledge in order to qualify for the offer. As reported by Yahoo News.
"The Japanese unit of the US burger giant Tuesday offered a Big Mac for 150 yen (1.3 dollars), about half the normal price, to anyone demonstrating a commitment to preventing climate change."
"We started seeing a rise in access yesterday and it surged this morning. We are now trying to restore the system."
"It was the ministry's first system crash following a corporate offer related to environmental efforts."
Despite being the home of the Kyoto protocol, the Japanese are well behind their own targets in terms of reducing CO2 emissions, so the government is using tie ups with many businesses offering incentives to get people to sign up to the pledge to reduce their emissions.
I suppose, in some circumstances, every little helps; but, I do wonder, just what is the relative CO2 emission output of a Big Mac?
On online offer of a half price McDonald's Big Mac actually brought down a Japanese government website server as thousands tried to fill in the pledge in order to qualify for the offer. As reported by Yahoo News.
"The Japanese unit of the US burger giant Tuesday offered a Big Mac for 150 yen (1.3 dollars), about half the normal price, to anyone demonstrating a commitment to preventing climate change."
"We started seeing a rise in access yesterday and it surged this morning. We are now trying to restore the system."
"It was the ministry's first system crash following a corporate offer related to environmental efforts."
Despite being the home of the Kyoto protocol, the Japanese are well behind their own targets in terms of reducing CO2 emissions, so the government is using tie ups with many businesses offering incentives to get people to sign up to the pledge to reduce their emissions.
I suppose, in some circumstances, every little helps; but, I do wonder, just what is the relative CO2 emission output of a Big Mac?
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Stating the bleedin' obvious
Yet again, we have a study that has dug up an amazing fact - research, as reported by Reuters (amongst many others) has shown that rock stars have a tendency to die younger than most!
Well, slap my thighs, that's just an amazing discovery - I can hardly believe it!
This is yet another in the long line of pointless, stupid, wasted research projects that conclude with what everybody knows to be the case anyway. It's from the same mold as the study in the early 1980's which concluded that people who smoked cigarettes tended not to suffer from Alzheimer's - whilst totally ignoring the fact that people who smoked heavily actually died before they were old enough to develop Alzheimer's disease.
Why is so much money squandered on such bloody useless research?
Well, slap my thighs, that's just an amazing discovery - I can hardly believe it!
This is yet another in the long line of pointless, stupid, wasted research projects that conclude with what everybody knows to be the case anyway. It's from the same mold as the study in the early 1980's which concluded that people who smoked cigarettes tended not to suffer from Alzheimer's - whilst totally ignoring the fact that people who smoked heavily actually died before they were old enough to develop Alzheimer's disease.
Why is so much money squandered on such bloody useless research?
If the hurricanes don't get you ......
..... the killer storms might!!
This from NASA published via Sci-Tech Today predicts that much of the central USA will suffer from more of, and increasingly worse, storms, as global warming takes hold.
6% more lightning, heavier, prolonged rainfall, and really huge hailstones are amongst the predictions.
"some of the severe hail that should be increasing could be baseball-sized and come down at 100 mph" Ouch!! That sounds painful!
But, as ever, it's all based on computer models - but then again so was the study that predicted what could happen to New Orleans if it was hit by a category 3 or 4 hurricane. And along came Katrina.
_______________
Meanwhile, Glacier National Park in Montana will probably not have any, errrr ........, glaciers within the next 20 years or so. As reported in VOA News today.
There were 150 glaciers when the park was first created, now there are 27, and these are disappearing at an astonishing rate!
This from NASA published via Sci-Tech Today predicts that much of the central USA will suffer from more of, and increasingly worse, storms, as global warming takes hold.
6% more lightning, heavier, prolonged rainfall, and really huge hailstones are amongst the predictions.
"some of the severe hail that should be increasing could be baseball-sized and come down at 100 mph" Ouch!! That sounds painful!
But, as ever, it's all based on computer models - but then again so was the study that predicted what could happen to New Orleans if it was hit by a category 3 or 4 hurricane. And along came Katrina.
_______________
Meanwhile, Glacier National Park in Montana will probably not have any, errrr ........, glaciers within the next 20 years or so. As reported in VOA News today.
There were 150 glaciers when the park was first created, now there are 27, and these are disappearing at an astonishing rate!
Strange bedfellows!
Isn't it amazing just how many strange partnerships that would have been utterly impossible to predict have come about as larger British business gear themselves up towards being 'green'?
This latest one really made my eyebrows rise - Marks & Spencers agreeing a tie up with the WWF (no, not the wrestling one!) as reported on WebWire this afternoon.
Perhaps another piece of the puzzle masterminded by Stuart Rose that is M&S's plan A?
This latest one really made my eyebrows rise - Marks & Spencers agreeing a tie up with the WWF (no, not the wrestling one!) as reported on WebWire this afternoon.
Perhaps another piece of the puzzle masterminded by Stuart Rose that is M&S's plan A?
He walks. He talks!
Handsome devil, no?This is a frame of what will, with luck, soon be greeting first time visitors to the Junkk.com site.
It is planned that it will move, too.
And, even may get bolted onto emails too!
Just a shedload of IT jiggery-pokery to take place first. And If I'm involved with that we're up the creek from the off.
Anyway, thanks to Geof of Clickingo for getting me shot, and Dave of Sound-i for helping get it online.
Meanwhile, back at the 'fine first' end...
'Ignorance is no excuse' they say, but it's hard not to sympathise with those who may well soon cop it from this: Firms ‘unprepared’ for waste regulation
Regs is regs, I know, but why do I get the feeling a lot more effort has gone into the policing of all this, as opposed to easing it in effectively.
I love this quote:
"It feels like over the past 12 months every man and his dog has been making noises about becoming greener, but here we have a major piece of legislation coming into force that supports this, and it is virtually ignored...."
Read one sentence more to get a hint why:
"Crucially, it isn't just manufacturers that will now have to treat their own non-hazardous waste before it is collected; every business in the country, including high street retailers, City offices and country pubs must now produce their own reports on how they have treated their waste, in accordance with the EA's guidelines.”
Or the key bit that tops it all off: 'It is still vague how heavily the rules will be enforced'
I'll be they figure the enforcement bit out pretty quick, but probably a tad before sorting out the vague aspects.
Regs is regs, I know, but why do I get the feeling a lot more effort has gone into the policing of all this, as opposed to easing it in effectively.
I love this quote:
"It feels like over the past 12 months every man and his dog has been making noises about becoming greener, but here we have a major piece of legislation coming into force that supports this, and it is virtually ignored...."
Read one sentence more to get a hint why:
"Crucially, it isn't just manufacturers that will now have to treat their own non-hazardous waste before it is collected; every business in the country, including high street retailers, City offices and country pubs must now produce their own reports on how they have treated their waste, in accordance with the EA's guidelines.”
Or the key bit that tops it all off: 'It is still vague how heavily the rules will be enforced'
I'll be they figure the enforcement bit out pretty quick, but probably a tad before sorting out the vague aspects.
And not a shredded seagull in sight!
I have been keen for some good news on the alternative energy front for a while. Maybe this is it: Dutch build towering wind turbines out at sea
Seems they are learning how to build them, which is a slight worry, but nothing ventured... I just hope at the end we may end up with some definitive data on their enviROIs.
And when I read that 'It is hoped that when they start rotating in early 2008 they will cut carbon-dioxide emissions by 225,000 tonnes, helping the Dutch to meet a target of 20 percent renewable energy use by 2020', that is a real measure of value. Words liked 'hoped' and 'helping' give cause for pause, especially considering the costs and logistics. The sea and salt-air laden coast of Europe is not the easiest of environments on structures, especially those with moving parts.
Seems they are learning how to build them, which is a slight worry, but nothing ventured... I just hope at the end we may end up with some definitive data on their enviROIs.
And when I read that 'It is hoped that when they start rotating in early 2008 they will cut carbon-dioxide emissions by 225,000 tonnes, helping the Dutch to meet a target of 20 percent renewable energy use by 2020', that is a real measure of value. Words liked 'hoped' and 'helping' give cause for pause, especially considering the costs and logistics. The sea and salt-air laden coast of Europe is not the easiest of environments on structures, especially those with moving parts.
We'll ask the questions!
I found this - Hour Town - courtesy of the estimable Grist to be on interest on a variety of levels, along with a lot of the feedback.
I still want to see the film as it is billed as having positive solutions, so it's notable that I hook into this aspect, as will others. Green Celeb-fatigue?
Though the problems of messengers vs. message, especially when some (well, I do) wonder if we are not a bit past celeb-inspired 'awareness' by now, are clearly still in evidence.
I still want to see the film as it is billed as having positive solutions, so it's notable that I hook into this aspect, as will others. Green Celeb-fatigue?
Though the problems of messengers vs. message, especially when some (well, I do) wonder if we are not a bit past celeb-inspired 'awareness' by now, are clearly still in evidence.
We'll be at the rear of the field come 2020
One of the oft quoted comments from those less inclined to consider the consequences of climate change/global warming is that nothing we do will make any difference while countries such as China are industrialising as quickly as they are.
Well, it would appear that when it comes to setting and achieving targets for generation of power from renewables, we will not even be competing in the achievement stakes. Despite Tony's much vaunted and publicly lauded target for the UK of 20% by 2020, we now know (see Coming Clean on this very blog) that the UK has absolutely zero realistic chance of hitting this target, and the best assessment is that we might, just, get to a 9% result if we really put some effort into the tasks required. (The actual result will be only 5% if current policies remain unchanged!)
This from China View, suggests that they intend to get to 15% of energy from renewables by 2020. Having spent some time in that part of the world, and knowing the work ethic of the Chinese, when they make a plan, they always have every intention of meeting the target set. And I am pretty certain that they will achieve this, whilst the UK slowly continues to fall behind in the renewables race.
Once again, it would appear that our Western predilection for setting totally unachievable targets is going to push the UK to the rear of the field. When will we ever learn?
Well, it would appear that when it comes to setting and achieving targets for generation of power from renewables, we will not even be competing in the achievement stakes. Despite Tony's much vaunted and publicly lauded target for the UK of 20% by 2020, we now know (see Coming Clean on this very blog) that the UK has absolutely zero realistic chance of hitting this target, and the best assessment is that we might, just, get to a 9% result if we really put some effort into the tasks required. (The actual result will be only 5% if current policies remain unchanged!)
This from China View, suggests that they intend to get to 15% of energy from renewables by 2020. Having spent some time in that part of the world, and knowing the work ethic of the Chinese, when they make a plan, they always have every intention of meeting the target set. And I am pretty certain that they will achieve this, whilst the UK slowly continues to fall behind in the renewables race.
Once again, it would appear that our Western predilection for setting totally unachievable targets is going to push the UK to the rear of the field. When will we ever learn?
Floods and Tears 3 - The wilderness years
Some may recall that the latest water-borne threats inspired me to get active on a bit of personal initiative by way of prevention rather than cure.
To date, I have had no further advice from the Environment Agency or Council, and am rather concerned that as the waters have abated, so has official interest. Until, of course the next 'unprecedented, unexpected' event.
For what it's worth, I have been sent a press release to Junkk.com that may allow for some action, and I will be making my views felt there*... since they have asked.
A website has been set up to allow the public to submit their comments at: http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/floodingreview
* Beyond professional interest, as my home was under threat I tried on a personal basis to get some information and advice from the Environment Agency and my council with a view to taking proactive steps by way of prevention, being better than cure.
Even with such a direct approach I have still heard nothing.
I think much more is needed to help those prepared not to be victims the next time, which there will be.
I fear as the waters have subsided, so has the interest of those surely tasked to think ahead as much as 'cope and hope'.
To date, I have had no further advice from the Environment Agency or Council, and am rather concerned that as the waters have abated, so has official interest. Until, of course the next 'unprecedented, unexpected' event.
For what it's worth, I have been sent a press release to Junkk.com that may allow for some action, and I will be making my views felt there*... since they have asked.
A website has been set up to allow the public to submit their comments at: http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/floodingreview
* Beyond professional interest, as my home was under threat I tried on a personal basis to get some information and advice from the Environment Agency and my council with a view to taking proactive steps by way of prevention, being better than cure.
Even with such a direct approach I have still heard nothing.
I think much more is needed to help those prepared not to be victims the next time, which there will be.
I fear as the waters have subsided, so has the interest of those surely tasked to think ahead as much as 'cope and hope'.
Sometimes a fence is the best place to be when surrounded by weeds
I just had through a bit of research entitled: UK consumers sit on the fence while climate change debate rages
From site Combat Climate Change, it goes on more insightfully to ask: Climate change: a real threat or an excuse for state meddling and stealth taxes? Well, as it stands, I am erring on both, and think a few agree. Which may explain the fence straddling bit.
With all due cautions* we always advise on the origins, extent, methodologies and possible agendas behind any and all research, it's worth sharing.
More than 45% of UK consumers confess they find the climate change debate confusing.
Only 45%?!
Of these, 41% of these admit they have delayed taking direct personal action to reduce their carbon footprint while they get to grips with the complex scientific arguments – even though a staggering 93% are well aware they can also save money by saving energy.
The personal action side is explicable. Why act to reduce 'fun' when there is a get out, albeit vague? The lack of desire to save money anyway is simply... inexplicable.
The survey revealed that more women (56%) than men (37%) find the climate change debate confusing – but women aren’t letting this confusion hold them back, and they equal men in their commitment to reduce their carbon footprint.
Nature vs. nurture? And without getting Germaine Greered, despite younger females now doing better at science I reckon the facts and figures being hurled around may be of more interest to the male mind.
Of those who find the climate change debate confusing, young baby boomers aged 55 to 64 are least likely (30%) to let the confusion hold them back from taking direct personal action to save energy and reduce their carbon footprint; those aged 16-24 were most likely to let the confusion hold them back (50%).
I hate to guess, but I doubt it's confusion; just an excuse for not wishing to miss out on the next iPod upgrade or stay in making something rather than hitting Ibiza. This is often the problem with research into social issues. Who and how many are going say ''Yes, I'm a selfish scumbucket and could care less!'. Other than Jeremy Clarkson, natch.
Overall, 79% of UK consumers believe the threat of climate change to be real. Those living in Greater London (87%) are most likely to be concerned about global climate change; those in the North East take a more cynical view, with 27% admitting they are non believers.
I am surprised, pleasantly, to see them so high. If concerned that belief does not seem to translate into much action.
The research also revealed:
· 40% of us leave a washing machine/dishwasher/electronic appliance on standby every day
Designers... manufacturers! Legislators! Kill the standby! In light of the tip below, which I practice, it's worth noting that once the cycle is complete, it stays 'on' 'til morning.
· 47% have yet to replace their light bulbs with low-energy alternatives
Just one word: plonkers. That said, I am testing a few brands as we speak having had a supermarket 'deal' effort blow in about two months. There are low-energy bulbs. There are long life bulbs. There are low energy, long life bulbs. And there are... ways to get us to blow money in the name of green that really has no ROI or enviROI basis at all. So be cautious!
· 19% rarely turn off home computing peripherals when shutting down their PC
Peripherals...no brainer. But on the PC front, well, here the old fence bit comes in. I don't know for sure yet. First up there's the old 'on/off' debate on damage to hard drive from spinning up and down to often being worse than leaving on... even environmentally. Also, the whole nighttime upgrade thing. Mine certainly seems to sort a few things out in the wee smalls. I wish there were a definite, trusted source of what to do on this. The science can't be that hard, surely? Mind you, if we can't get any sense yet on wind farms, what are the odds?
MD Stewart Grew, says: “Where individual consumers stand on climate change is largely irrelevant. That’s a matter of personal conscience, and we could spend years debating the finer points while millions of people sit on the fence.
“The fact is, by saving energy now, every individual can save money – and they just might save the planet at the same time. If all the concerns are real, they will have done their bit for the world. If it all turns out to be so much hot air, then they will have made their own world a better place anyway. Everyone wins.”
And I can't fault that sentiment one jot.
They also have some tips to: Save Energy, Save Money. Again, can't argue... and in fact have been banging on in a similar vein for years. Worth sharing as they are a bit more £-centric than the usual quango/committee efforts that abound:
1. Buy plug-in timers
They save you money by turning on your appliances only when they are needed. And if you are on one of the cheaper, night rates for your electricity, by running your washing machine and dishwasher overnight you could save up to 50% of the cost of running them during the day.
And timer solves the standby issue! I am, by the by, in process of doing a in-home test of several for review on the site soon.
2. Invest in a multi-plug board for your PC
Electrical equipment left on standby in the UK wastes £740 million of energy every year. By switching your computer peripherals off, rather than leaving them on standby, you can save both energy and money.
3. Replace your old GLS light bulbs
Energy saving light bulbs last up to 12 times longer than ordinary light bulbs, and can save you £100 over the bulb’s lifetime – as well as 38kg of CO2 per year!
*The survey was conducted by market research agency TNS. It was conducted over the internet from 14th – 16th August 2007 and involved a sample of 1002 GB adults aged 16-64. The sample was weighted to represent the adult population of Great Britain aged 16-64.
From site Combat Climate Change, it goes on more insightfully to ask: Climate change: a real threat or an excuse for state meddling and stealth taxes? Well, as it stands, I am erring on both, and think a few agree. Which may explain the fence straddling bit.
With all due cautions* we always advise on the origins, extent, methodologies and possible agendas behind any and all research, it's worth sharing.
More than 45% of UK consumers confess they find the climate change debate confusing.
Only 45%?!
Of these, 41% of these admit they have delayed taking direct personal action to reduce their carbon footprint while they get to grips with the complex scientific arguments – even though a staggering 93% are well aware they can also save money by saving energy.
The personal action side is explicable. Why act to reduce 'fun' when there is a get out, albeit vague? The lack of desire to save money anyway is simply... inexplicable.
The survey revealed that more women (56%) than men (37%) find the climate change debate confusing – but women aren’t letting this confusion hold them back, and they equal men in their commitment to reduce their carbon footprint.
Nature vs. nurture? And without getting Germaine Greered, despite younger females now doing better at science I reckon the facts and figures being hurled around may be of more interest to the male mind.
Of those who find the climate change debate confusing, young baby boomers aged 55 to 64 are least likely (30%) to let the confusion hold them back from taking direct personal action to save energy and reduce their carbon footprint; those aged 16-24 were most likely to let the confusion hold them back (50%).
I hate to guess, but I doubt it's confusion; just an excuse for not wishing to miss out on the next iPod upgrade or stay in making something rather than hitting Ibiza. This is often the problem with research into social issues. Who and how many are going say ''Yes, I'm a selfish scumbucket and could care less!'. Other than Jeremy Clarkson, natch.
Overall, 79% of UK consumers believe the threat of climate change to be real. Those living in Greater London (87%) are most likely to be concerned about global climate change; those in the North East take a more cynical view, with 27% admitting they are non believers.
I am surprised, pleasantly, to see them so high. If concerned that belief does not seem to translate into much action.
The research also revealed:
· 40% of us leave a washing machine/dishwasher/electronic appliance on standby every day
Designers... manufacturers! Legislators! Kill the standby! In light of the tip below, which I practice, it's worth noting that once the cycle is complete, it stays 'on' 'til morning.
· 47% have yet to replace their light bulbs with low-energy alternatives
Just one word: plonkers. That said, I am testing a few brands as we speak having had a supermarket 'deal' effort blow in about two months. There are low-energy bulbs. There are long life bulbs. There are low energy, long life bulbs. And there are... ways to get us to blow money in the name of green that really has no ROI or enviROI basis at all. So be cautious!
· 19% rarely turn off home computing peripherals when shutting down their PC
Peripherals...no brainer. But on the PC front, well, here the old fence bit comes in. I don't know for sure yet. First up there's the old 'on/off' debate on damage to hard drive from spinning up and down to often being worse than leaving on... even environmentally. Also, the whole nighttime upgrade thing. Mine certainly seems to sort a few things out in the wee smalls. I wish there were a definite, trusted source of what to do on this. The science can't be that hard, surely? Mind you, if we can't get any sense yet on wind farms, what are the odds?
MD Stewart Grew, says: “Where individual consumers stand on climate change is largely irrelevant. That’s a matter of personal conscience, and we could spend years debating the finer points while millions of people sit on the fence.
“The fact is, by saving energy now, every individual can save money – and they just might save the planet at the same time. If all the concerns are real, they will have done their bit for the world. If it all turns out to be so much hot air, then they will have made their own world a better place anyway. Everyone wins.”
And I can't fault that sentiment one jot.
They also have some tips to: Save Energy, Save Money. Again, can't argue... and in fact have been banging on in a similar vein for years. Worth sharing as they are a bit more £-centric than the usual quango/committee efforts that abound:
1. Buy plug-in timers
They save you money by turning on your appliances only when they are needed. And if you are on one of the cheaper, night rates for your electricity, by running your washing machine and dishwasher overnight you could save up to 50% of the cost of running them during the day.
And timer solves the standby issue! I am, by the by, in process of doing a in-home test of several for review on the site soon.
2. Invest in a multi-plug board for your PC
Electrical equipment left on standby in the UK wastes £740 million of energy every year. By switching your computer peripherals off, rather than leaving them on standby, you can save both energy and money.
3. Replace your old GLS light bulbs
Energy saving light bulbs last up to 12 times longer than ordinary light bulbs, and can save you £100 over the bulb’s lifetime – as well as 38kg of CO2 per year!
*The survey was conducted by market research agency TNS. It was conducted over the internet from 14th – 16th August 2007 and involved a sample of 1002 GB adults aged 16-64. The sample was weighted to represent the adult population of Great Britain aged 16-64.
All in the best possible taste
I won't list them, as it's across the board, but pretty much all the media have reported on the consequences of Jamie Oliver's healthy meals campaign.
The results... have not been encouraging. Across several areas.
I have to say the collective feral lips-licking at what I do think was a sincere effort to be a little distasteful, but to sure there are lessons to be learned and also consequences being paid, and still to pay.
Mostly I am selfishly concerned at just how difficult it is to persuade people to do good , even if it is to save their own sorry hides.
If this is the result of a multimillion PRD thrust then what chance for most things 're', which are 'good' but not always fun.
Except most on Junkk.com, of course.
The results... have not been encouraging. Across several areas.
I have to say the collective feral lips-licking at what I do think was a sincere effort to be a little distasteful, but to sure there are lessons to be learned and also consequences being paid, and still to pay.
Mostly I am selfishly concerned at just how difficult it is to persuade people to do good , even if it is to save their own sorry hides.
If this is the result of a multimillion PRD thrust then what chance for most things 're', which are 'good' but not always fun.
Except most on Junkk.com, of course.
Trouble with targets
As a morning diversion I decided to take this quiz: Highway Code
I failed. And it is an interesting metaphor to the target obsessed culture we live in why.
To pass you are allowed one miss in ten. One I am ashamed to say I did miss was a question on guide dogs. Though I would have to say any dog I treat with caution when driving, no matter what.
The other, and the one which 'failed' me, was on the diatnce you could park from a junction. I put the minimum too far away.
So I was 'wrong' by being over-cautious.
I dread to think what other numpty questions, especially key ones on safety or daft ones on 'procedure' there are in there that won't sift out good drivers and common sense driving from bad, but will tick some boxes.
I failed. And it is an interesting metaphor to the target obsessed culture we live in why.
To pass you are allowed one miss in ten. One I am ashamed to say I did miss was a question on guide dogs. Though I would have to say any dog I treat with caution when driving, no matter what.
The other, and the one which 'failed' me, was on the diatnce you could park from a junction. I put the minimum too far away.
So I was 'wrong' by being over-cautious.
I dread to think what other numpty questions, especially key ones on safety or daft ones on 'procedure' there are in there that won't sift out good drivers and common sense driving from bad, but will tick some boxes.
I sometimes forget Junkk.com is mainly about ideas
I just uploaded the Squidstand to the site.While the base is a bit of fun, I am very proud of the 'clip' system, which will hold even a floppy piece of A4 tall and proud.
And it came to me simply be staring at a collection of new-fangled tin lids.
Now I'm thinking what else can be made using this system.
Where's an old wife when you need one?
Tomorrow the boys go back to school. And as if to complement the change in domestic regime, as I fussed about the kitchen this morning it seemed a tad parky.Now what to do? The sun is still shining, and at day's end last night was a vision of topless manhood catching the last rays of the day painting an exterior wall.
But somewhere in my being is an odd notion, I suspect inserted by a young wife whose physiology is more attuned to a daily 32 degrees, that old houses with thick stone walls need to be warmed from within while it's still clement to keep roasty-toasty come winter. Miss the window and you are in a chill zone throughout.
Thing is, that hardly tallies with the eco-cred. Or the drop a degree brigade.
Now I know what our power suppliers think, because already I am seeing banners a) telling me to pop the rads on, but b) do it with their tariff... to save the environment.
I just wondered if there was any actual science on the matter out there?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)