Further to the previous post ....

..... here is the Guardian's take on the Tory proposals. I think that this provides a more concise and clear summary than most of the rest of the media.

This is the article reproduced in full.
_________________________________________

Under proposals published yesterday the Tories have promised to redefine the measure of the UK's success away from simply measuring GDP and towards a group of indicators taking in economic wellbeing, societal wellbeing and environmental wellbeing.

Climate change

· Set a target for carbon dioxide emissions focused on ensuring global temperatures rise no more than 2C above pre-industrial levels. This means the UK must plan for an 80% cut in global emissions by 2050, higher than current government targets.

Now that is ambitious - and, unfortunately, probably unachievable.

· Reform the European emissions trading scheme (ETS) so that all permits to the utility sector and aviation are subject to auction, a means of raising the cost.

· "Clean development mechanisms" (such as carbon trading) should not be used as a way of avoiding domestic reductions in C02 emissons.

It will be interesting to see how they could enforce that.

Flying

· Moratorium on airport expansion, VAT on aviation fuel in domestic flights, and inclusion of aviation in ETS. Reform air passenger duty so it is linked to the flight and not the passenger.

· Publish comparative details of carbon dioxide emissions on tickets and set up a global trust for all climate change communication.

Motoring

· A new purchase tax on cars of up to 10% depending on CO2 output, as well as a sliding VAT scale between 5% and 17.5%. Vehicle excise duty set at maximum of £500, more than double the present £215 top rate.

Interesting!

· Introduce car efficiency targets of 120g of CO2 emitted per kilometre by 2012 and 80-100g by 2020 throughout the EU.

European vehicle manufacturers are struggling to meet the EU's current target of 140g, the UK trying to enforce even more stringent cuts is rather pointless.

· Place cigarette-style warnings, of a mandated size, on all car adverts.

This will be an utter waste of time if you ask me!

· Introduce a new employer parking spaces tax set at market rate.

Could cause a few problems, especially for bigger businesses.

· Reduce volume of car trips by 10%-17% by designing neighbourhoods where people can walk between amenities.

Errrmm, like, how? My nearest bank/cinema/post office etc. is over 6 miles away.

· Review cost-benefit analysis of road building.

Surely they do this already? If not, why the hell not?

Countryside

· Trespassers and burglars should no longer have the right to sue for damage done to them on other people's property.

That just might win them a few votes!

· Improve the needs test to control out of town shopping.

· Abolish regional government tier in planning.

Meaning what, exactly?

· Double council tax on a home that remains empty for more than a year.

· Relax planning controls on all estates with four or more houses built since 1945.

Also, meaning what, exactly?

· Review the spread of buy to let.

· Local councils, by referendum, able to rule that only people living in a countryside home for 200 days a year or more are allowed to buy the property.

That could prove extremely difficult to implement!

Energy efficiency

· Abolish home information packs, the government's controversial attempt to streamline the house buying process.

· A mandatory code for new sustainable homes, plus energy performance certificates requiring improvements by landlords and homeowners when major changes are made to a house.

About time too - we should have been doing this 30 years ago!

· Financial incentives (such as council tax rebates) plus low-cost capital to help homeowners improve energy efficiency, and reduced stamp duty for energy- efficient homes.

Bring it on!! The most sensible idea so far!

· All public companies to make annual statement on energy use by setting out their energy consumption per square metre.

Hmmmm, I thought that they are already supposed to do this? (Not necessarily by per M2)

· Smart meters introduced over a period of 10 years to aid energy saving.

Again, we should have been doing this years ago!

· Standby switches to be abandoned subject to EU agreement.

Not sure that this is achievable - I'd prefer to ban products that consume anything more than say, 1 watt, whilst on standby mode. Imagine having to reset the clock on your DVD/VCR every single time you switch it on!

Energy

· No new coal power stations after 2020 without carbon capture and storage. Existing stations will have until 2025 to introduce the technology.

Hoo - bloody -ray! Again, we should have been doing this for years now!

· No taxpayer/government funding for nuclear fission, risks and costs of nuclear borne by the private sector. But new carbon price in ETS will make nuclear more competitive.

So does that mean that fusion technology research is still funded?

· Withdraw subsidy for onshore wind farms.

If they are in poor, wind inefficient locations, then yes, it makes sense, otherwise I'm not too certain.

Food and waste

· Bans on the landfilling of recyclable and compostable materials.

Errrrm, wasn't this already supposed to be in place? Or is that just some local councils own initiative?

· 20p deposit on returnable bottles.

Back to the good old days when I was a kid! Bottle collecting for pocket money!

· Incinerators would capture and generate heat.

And put out lots of CO2 and toxins unless mandatorily fitted with CO2 and noxious gas scrubbers.

· A strengthened, legally binding code of practice on supermarkets and a ban on selling below cost price.

Hmmmm, a code of practice or legislation? Loss leading is a way of life for the big supermarket chains, it's one of the only tools they have for gaining market share!

· Reform Common Agricultural Policy but do not cut the amount of money spent on CAP in the UK.

Now there's a can of worms waiting to be opened!!

ADDENDUM (by Junkk Male):

I guess it's part of the political fabric, but it sill seems a shame that whatever one lot does the other lot(s) will trash it all. Anyhoo, as those with perhaps more claim to being green than most, here's what I got sent (maybe there'll be more detail on what was in the report to come):

Greens dismiss Tory environmental claims

Speaking in advance of this week's publication of the Conservative
Party's 'Quality of Life' review, Green Party Principal Speakers Siân
Berry and Derek Wall today dismissed suggestions that the Tories had
gone Green.

Green Party Principal Speaker Siân Berry said:

"It seems clear that Cameron is trying to slide out of his previous
promise that the Tories would support a new round of nuclear power
stations only as a last resort.

"Backing nuclear power makes a mockery of their green pretensions.

"Dirty, dangerous, unnecessary and expensive - support for this
ailing industry comes at a cost of funding for the cutting edge
renewables technology.

Principal Speaker Derek Wall said:

"If they were serious about tackling climate change, the Tories would
call for an immediate moratorium on any more road building or
aviation growth.

"As it is, their belief that a bigger economy is a better economy
undermines any hope they have of adopting the right policies for
tackling climate change."

"The Conservatives privatisation of public transport under Thatcher
is one of the reasons why 80 per cent of journeys are by car. They
need to support the renationalisation of rail as well as reregulation
of bus travel."

Not the greatest in consumer-helpful, specfics-heavy retorts I might have hoped for, especially when reaching back to the Thatcher era at one point.

And when they were up they were up, and when they were green they came down

There used to be a phase, now very un-PC and hence used no more: Indian Giver. Basically it meant (I think) offering something and then retracting it. It doesn't take much to see how this process is often worse than doing nothing at all.

So we come to Cameron 'drops controversial green pledges'

No sooner than I was getting my head around the 549 (lost two here) page report's summary (the full thing I'll leave to the 'RILEwings' (hey... and acronym: RIght/LEft wings) to cherry pick and gnaw to death, or hope some halfway objective journo may do so) than it looks like it really isn't worth the bother.

A shame, because that's not really how it was meant, but in this instant gratification/immediate reaction world, it was hard to separate a 'study' from policy. So while you can admire looking at an issue, warts and all, there seems to be a need to package it such that this clear distinction gets made in the minds of those for whom it is intended.

As it stands, I have no clue what is in or out, and hence really can have no opinion save for what seems a good idea, what might not be and, as they are different, what may/may not be good ideas to have if you want to win an election to get to do rather than just talk.

Carrots are good in this regard, but they better be pretty clear and trusted to salve the likely reaction to some less than lifestyle friendly hits.

There is also my enviROI bugbear: big vs. populist hits. At least as to what gets reported, which may be beyond the party's control.

The Quality of Life report analysis in the Indy does, I hope at least with the Recommendation ( I am unsure about the Expert View), conform to my desire for objectivity. I can't disagree with them, though I would want a lot more. For instance developing sustainable timber into stopping deforestation. I share its key points here:

Greenhouse gases

Recommendation: To combat climate change, the Tories should plan for an 80 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, not the current 60 per cent target.

Expert view: This will hardly be among today's headlines about restricting flying and making gas guzzling cars more expensive, but to green campaigners it will stand out as an absolutely key commitment. It is increasingly clear to scientists that a 60 per cent cut in Co2 will not nearly be enough to halt the progress of global warming. In its draft Climate Change bill, however, the Labour government is sticking with the 60 per cent target.

Nuclear energy

Recommendation: The final decision on whether or not to build a new generation of nuclear power stations should be left to the private sector, and primarily based on economics.

Expert view: This nuclear fence-sitting is very different from the historic Conservative line on nuclear power, which (especially under Margaret Thatcher) was to give it unquestioning and rock-solid support. It also sharply differentiates the Tories from Labour, who are firmly backing nuclear power, and the Lib Dems, who would ban it. Probably a compromise that the Tory leadership, and the party, will go along with; the greens are pleased.

Biofuels

Recommendation: A Tory government should press ahead with biofuels to cut down Co2 emissions, but be very careful of the pitfalls associated with them.

Expert view: Transport fuels made from crops produce no net Co2 (because they absorb it as they grow) and therefore are increasingly seen as a quick fix to cut missions. But they also present potentially enormous environmental and social problems, including rainforest destruction and large-scale use of agricultural land, driving up food prices. Biofuels, says the report, should play an increasing role but be chosen for quality not quantity, with origin verified by the Government.

Sustainable timber

Recommendation: A Tory government should make the importation of timber from questionable sources illegal.

Expert view: Legislation should be brought in to ensure that only legal and sustainable timber products are sold in the UK. Many green campaigners and others concerned about the continuing destruction of the rainforests will welcome this proposal heartily. According to the World Wide Fund forNature, in 2005 the UK was the biggest importer of illegal timber in Europe, with the total making up 26 per cent of our imported wood.

Indy - Should we believe politicians when they promise to save the earth? I don't think so - my point about the messenger vs. the message writ clear. I must try and track Zac's Telegraph piece.

Telegraph - 'We can't carry on soaking up resources'

First it was cars, then planes, now shipping.

There has been one major form of transportation which seems, at least until now, to have largely escaped any media attention; I suspect they have simply kept quiet themselves whilst watching the flak aimed at others. But no secret remains so forever, and finally, a mainstream media source, Reuters, has pointed the finger at shipping, which some analysts claim emits almost as much CO2 as the airline industry.

"In Los Angeles alone, the ships in port spew more pollution than the metro area's six million cars combined"

"the trillion-dollar industry, which carries around 90 percent of world trade by volume on about 50,000 merchant ships, also accounts for about 10 percent of global sulphur dioxide emissions, a cause of acid rain, as well as large amounts of toxic nitrous oxide and particulate emissions."

I wonder how long it will be before the tabloids and the ragtops pick this one up and start advising their readers to take the chunnel, rather than the ferry, to France? Or perhaps the embattled aviation industry will use this as a stick with which to point blame at others?

Made me smile. Then frown.

This from the ever-useful MRW: Councils' decisions questioned by Repic letter

At first blush it looks like little in our consumer sphere to get involved with, but then I decided to have a nosey.

Considering the amounts involved, how such decisions are arrived at should be of massive public interest, and especially when they affect how we set up the planet of the future. For our kids? Or targets and/or bonuses?

Councils may 'have expressed concern about this letter'. I'd like to know why. And what the answers are.

This - “Local authorities may deem the information requested as commercially sensitive and decide not to give it out.” is one hell of a get out (of jail free?)!

Just add 'green' and it would be perfect

It has been too long. The ongoing genius of Dilbert.

Slate, thatch, or crossply?

This is the kind of thing I think WRAP (or, more accurately, its support systems) does well: Recycling Tyres Into Roof Tiles

So long as the numbers add up (inc. enviROI), this looks a winner.

I wish all involved well.

Money=?

Google Founders' Ultimate Perk: A NASA Runway

I think I'm boring most when I point out that it's hard to have a ton of cash and not spend it on stuff like toys and going places (or how all media, no matter how eco-sensitive, can resist reporting such excess in the awed terms accorded celeb lifestyles). I guess they just managed a neat combo.

Here's hoping we don't end up being lectured on going green from this quarter too overtly.

But I'm sure they offset like billy-o.

Guardian - Is black the new green? - Gotta love 'em though. Nice reply. IT feedback also noted.

Big Mac

I referred to it before but, as is the way, almost forgot due to events, dear boys and guys... events. The Conservative report is now out, and warrants another outing, starting here: Tory report backs increased taxes on flights and cars

Interestingly, listening to the Jeremy Vine show 'tother day, I would say the BBC is seemingly in pendulum mode balance wise, because this didn't half cop it!

I'm sure there'll be more. And I just hope I can find the time to read it all (but at 549 pages that may not happen - which may be a metaphor for the disconnect between those telling us stuff and us listening/doing) and add my t'pennyworth without relying on others, and their biases, to creep in first.

To kick off: A quality report

I'd love to read it (ta, Guardian) to form my own view, but at 549 pages that may not happen.

Which, in a climate where there is a seeming disconnect between those who are telling us what to do, and what 'we' actually pay attention to and act upon, may explain some things.

I guess I'll do what I always do and just let the various 'wings' slug it out and bumble along in my own sweet way if it makes sense, seems fair and has a decent enviROI.

Guardian - MPs: government should help citizens 'do their bit' on climate change - Well, D'uh. As opposed to what?

Now That's Radical !!

But by my reckoning, has about as much chance as the the proverbial snowball's in hell.

This little snippet from NewCarNet suggests that the only way that the Greater London Authority could achieve its intended aim of a 60% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2025, is to ban all private cars from the city!

When, well, IF in London

It's how I like my conferences. So long as they end up as billed, that is: Relevant, topical, hopefully balanced (you have to look at provenance - COMPASS has a 'leaning') informative... and free.

The title looks fair. Wish I could go. Hope it moves things on.

Can a consumer society stop climate change?

Climate change is arguably the biggest challenge we face, however can it be stopped in an increasingly consumer society? Some have suggested if we continue to consume at the present rate we'd need 4 planets to sustain our current consumption levels.

With the main parties facing growing pressure to live up to their rhetoric on climate change and in the run-up to the climate change bill, Compass has convened a special debate to discuss these issues at: 6pm on Thursday 4 October in Central London (exact venue tbc).

Our high-profile international speaker Clive Hamilton is the executive director of The Australia Institute, Australia’s leading progressive think tank. He's best known for his work on climate change policy, consumerism and the problems of economic growth. In 2004 the Australia Institute teamed up with the IPPR in London and the Center for American Progress in Washington to form the International Climate Change Taskforce. Clive has published extensively, including the best-selling books Growth Fetish and Affluenza (co-authored with Richard Denniss) and What's Left: The death of social democracy. His most recent book is Scorcher: The dirty politics of climate change.

At the debate he'll be joined by Compass chair Neal Lawson who's currently writing a book called All Consuming (www.allconsuming.org.uk) for publication in Spring 2008. More speakers are to be announced and the event will be chaired by Green Alliance Director Stephen Hale.

The event is free to attend, but early registration is essential to guarantee your place. Please email gavin@compassonline.org.uk to register.

The mouth says no. The dress says yes.

I'd hate to be on any jury. But especially a rape one. Despite too many CSI episodes it would be impossible to convict, especially when it's down to the word of the two sole witnesses.

This, is just slightly to do with that. It's about the dilemma one faces as a medium with a model based on ad revenue, and allied influences, as discussed in other blogs today (sponsorship, funding, etc). You have to be careful that what you say is not countered too much (if at all), but what's happening around you, and hence associated with you.

On Junkk.com I fully intend (and need) to have ads to help me pay my way. And logic dictates the ads on certain sections are relevant to them.

I'd like to think that I can mange to make sure that they are just ads, that they conform to all necessary ethical and ASA-required standards (if you look at their weekly hit-list, that's a big 'if'), and the reader treats them and the messages as such.

I was pondering this as I was reading a green-related piece in the Guardian today.

I was alse attracted to the button (above right), which got me to the page (above left), which in turn led me further down a pretty exclusive trail on the green and wonderful world of British Gas.

Now I don't know, but I am unsure as to their relative merits in the great green firmament, especially of energy production/supply (our biggest national CO2 emitter, no?), but I just felt the way all this was set up gave rather to much credence to what is in fact a naked corporate pitch.

I have no problem with sponsorship, but I do think it is incumbent upon the medium to ensure that the advertiser does not end up so dominating the screen that any chance of objectivity in message or editorial is tainted.

Well, he asked... in the Guardian

Can this really save the planet? Is the question posed, surrounding by more ads with the word green than you could shake a self-powered torch at.

And, for fun (if not irony), right next to this: Aston Martin tops cool brands list (Junkk.com oddly, not yet there).

I have of course been banging on about big vs. small picture for a while. But as he sets them out initially it's in a different area. All the small tips cited are 'why nots?', easy to effect and usually save money. The ones that get me going are diversions, and often divisive ones, such as bottled water witch hunts, which over-shadow campaigns (are they any?) to coordinate 'ground to grounded' life cycle systems that involve all in the waste chain and don't just throw a bunch of targets and jargon at the poor consumer to sort out. Plus insulation (we'll, in all senses of the word, come back to that).

Of course if you 'take these simple steps today... they really do "make a difference". Do 'em!

Only later do we get to easier agreement. With some facts I can only assume are correct. There will be others incoming as I write, I'm sure.

A long time ago in a publication I asked those who know (I think it was either a plastics or recycling trade mag), just how much 'plastic', the 100-300 (estimates vary) carriers 'we' use (and 'I' reuse; a fact often not factored in by those who still purchase bin liners) represents? Sadly, to date, no answer. I just wondered if it would equate to the number of Fairy Liquid bottles not reused at the BBC, insert sleeves/DVDs at the Indy or water fountain bottles at the LibDem HQ... each week.

I have to disagree on the standby thing. While I rail against those who get over eco-puritan about where their definitions of 'what's necessary' stops (usually at what they deem is required for a comfy, green-glow lifestyle), these things simply are not. And the figures I have seen suggest that they gobble a lot that is pure waste. So... bad call.

And these things are cumulative y'know. So I am very happy, both financially and economically, with my Ecokettle.

Which is a pity, because it all set a tone that coloured what I do agree with way down the piece: that there is any equivalence between these lifestyle preferences and the serious decisions that really reduce emissions - stopping flying, living close to work and living in a well-insulated house. (I critique as I read, so OK it's here... at last. No apologies for leaving mine up there.

And I have to agree , a tad, about the wallpaper. The latest blonde celeb to get wheeled out to promote her film/TV/book on the back of some green effort she was the face of, managed recycling, having a shower and... er... that was it. Meanwhile, she was off to Bali for a shoot next week.

Which brings one to the role of media in all this, as discussed on these posts many times before. They really can't have both, and both ways. Either stick with the line on climate or not, but don't try the first whilst promoting celebrity and consumer excess at every turn via editorial and ads. Or getting snitty because some green commentators (if I may make so bold as to include myself) and, more importantly, most public (and, eventually, the BBC), don't see such as Live Earth and/or Planet Relief as the best way forward.

But as one more than critical of blowing money that could be better spent elsewhere than on quango board members' bonus-boosting comms budgets, I am more than interested (assuming it's true - so pending attribution/confirmation) that 'making the solutions easy is no guarantee that anyone will carry them out.' And that, ' The government spent £22m on the Do Your Bit campaign and has subsequently admitted that it produced no measurable change in personal behaviour.' How much so far on telling us to recycle, for instance? And what does ActOnCo2 do exactly for the money? And what was the ROI, much less the enviROI of these efforts?

Especially if, with such as recycling, Mori (assuming... yada.. I need an acronym for these points. Subject To Unequivocal Follow-Up Proof - STUFUP) 'concluded that it was becoming an act of "totem behaviour" and that "individuals use recycling as a means of discharging their responsibility to undertake wider changes in lifestyle".

And I really can't fault this: 'Governments and businesses are, if anything, even more prone to tokenistic behaviour than individuals. Encouraging small voluntary actions by the public, customers or staff looks good and is much safer than passing restrictive legislation or rethinking your entire business model.'

So, in conclusion...

... what we need is a sense of proportion. No question.

We also need to rethink the way we talk about climate change. Ditto. Plus those who have taken it upon themselves to be considered leaders of the charge, whilst often charging (or earning) so lucratively in the process, as I can't say the job most are doing amounts to much that helps my kids' futures.

And let's be clear that voluntary action will never be enough - we will need radical political, economic and social change. I hear you, brother!

So let's start by doing away with that wretched phrase "you can save the planet". Well, it doesn't bother me, but I usually bolt 'and save money, too' on the end, at least with Junkk.com (I popped in a hyperlink and forget that the full point makes a big difference. D'Oh!) . Seems to work.

But I will add one more, teensie bit: 'And your positive suggestions would be...?" They may be around, but here would be a good place to share too.

Read Bibi van der Zee's response to this article: What's wrong with turning lights off?

Again interesting, but again the order of priority had me thrown. At least Fiesta family gets a mention. And again the notion that 'awareness' is worth it if it translates into action, but with little regard that some efforts may actually have a reverse effect. As has, say , the city-centric but nationwide anti 4x4 campaigns out in the country.

Fishing for evidence?

Sometimes you just don't have to - the evidence comes to you!

Every now and again we hear reports of unusual species turning up off the coast of the UK. The Basking Sharks that are now commonly observed off Cornwall on an almost daily basis were very rarely sighted 30 years ago. But it seems that bigger is better as far as reporting is concerned - species such as a Loggerheads Turtle generate a local influx of umpteen television crews turning up to record the event. Scary species are good too - just look at the hours of recent coverage on the TV and in the press about the Great White Shark - which turned out to be, well, not a member of that particular family.

Now many marine species are highly sensitive to even minuscule changes in temperature, salinity and interruptions to the food chain, whether they are large and/or scary (and hence worthy of major news coverage) or small.

But when something that has only been recorded 42 times in the last 150 years starts arriving off our coast in noticeable numbers you would think that it just might get some serious news coverage. The trouble is, this particular chap, a warm, temperate marine species, only grows to a couple of pounds or so, so it just doesn't have the newsworthiness clout that a large turtle or a big shark has.

This from local website thisiscornwall, highlights the arrival of the Amberjack in British coastal waters. Now 42 sightings in 150 years doesn't sound too important, but when you consider that 12 of those sightings have been over the last three months, and 4 of those were over the last weekend alone, then it just has to be significant.

Now the Amberjack isn't exactly a handsome little fish, nor is it big or scary, but what it does present is genuine and almost incontrovertible evidence of just what is happening to the seas off our coast as climate change slowly increases water temperatures.

Little fish may be sweet, but unfortunately they don't increase the media ratings, despite the importance of what they might portend.
____________________________

n.b.1 I have since found out that there are several species of Amberjack, one of which can grow to a whopping 170 lb in weight. The ones currently appearing are all of the smaller species.

n.b.2 Wasn't the guy in the photo in 'Village People' years ago?

It's not. But if it was. Oh it is. And it's ok. Or...

As a fearless parapet head-sticker-over of a contrary but good nature, I usually have some time for 'sceptical environmentalist' Bjorn Lomborg. So I decided this may be worth a gander: Global Warming, the Great Lifesaver

However, I have a rule of thumb, and that is 'if they're promoting a book to you, careful how you look, too'. Sure enough, there's a new tome in tow (Junkk.com, by the way is available now, price: free).

I stand ready to be corrected, but the main premise seems a stretch, for two reasons alone (what, Peter pithy?):

1 - If it's a trend, I'm guessing we may go through balmy and hit roasty toasty pretty quick. Not all of us can survive by sunbathing for a living. Or under water. Or...


2 - This all seems a bit centric on those parts of the world which do, admittedly, get cold. What about those that are already hot all the time? I know he's blond and blue-eyed and all, but don't they count? Maybe that's covered elsewhere in the book.

But, at least, Bjorn Lomborg, the controversial Danish economist, believes that “global - that's global - warming is real and man-made.”

Indy - Stark warning of extinction list: 'Life on Earth is disappearing' - The thing about ignoring lists is that you might one day find yourself on them. Ask Pastor Neimoller.

Guardian - Heeding the right global warnings - By the man himself. Hard to equate to the other one I read. Ho hum. Selective editing is all. Very good links in the posts.

Doom, Gloom and more Doom

Climate change already seems to be hitting parts of the Mediterranean very hard. Having spoken to several friends who have recently returned from holiday in various Mediterranean locations such as Greece, Sicily and Malta (lucky lot!), and having listened to all of them moaning that at 40C+ in the shade (48C in one instance!), it was just too damned hot to go out during the early afternoon, I wasn't too surprised to come across this from the International Herald Tribune which reports that the Mediterranean Sea itself may be at risk.

"temperature rises could wipe out 'up to 50 percent of the species,' the study said. The decline in the algae population measured last winter also reduced by 30 percent the sea's ability to absorb carbon dioxide"
Now that's getting scary.

And on the same day we get a story from Reuters Africa suggesting that the impact of global warming could be as devastating as nuclear war!

"The most recent international moves towards combating global warming represent a recognition ... that if the emission of greenhouse gases ... is allowed to continue unchecked, the effects will be catastrophic -- on the level of nuclear war"
That's very worrying!

Meanwhile, as reported in the Guardian yesterday, our own MOD has commissioned a study "to identify countries where battles could break out over increasingly scarce supplies of food and water, as well as predict the likely conditions in which British troops may have to fight in future". The study is attempting to identify just what the consequences of an over-populated planet undergoing significant climatic change might be, but it sounds more like significant pre-preparation for some nasty worst case future scenarios.
Now that's really filled me full of doom and gloom!

Arctic Ice Watch - Update

A little while back, we commented on the new record for a minimum of ice coverage across the Arctic ocean. See Arctic Ice Hits New Record Low.

Well, only a few weeks later, as reported by the National Snow & Ice Data Centre, the disappearance of the ice coverage has continued at an astonishing and unprecedented rate. As of the 9th September, the Arctic sea ice extent has dropped "to 4.24 million square kilometers (1.63 million square miles), falling yet further below the previous record absolute minimum of 5.32 million square kilometers (2.05 million square miles) that occurred on September 20–21, 2005".

With still perhaps two more weeks of melt, we may actually see the mythical North-East passage open at this rate. (The North-West passage has already been fully navigable for several weeks.)

And, dear readers, what colour will you be?

Kelly - extra £1.2million to turn white van man green - I'm going for a red (burst blood vessel) or maybe blue (ceased to breathe).

I do declare this comes on the same day I saw a BBC report on doing the limit to save the planet as well. Do I feel a campaign coming on?

As it exists I feel obligated to share, and as the link doesn't work in full. I feel unable to comment (which I may have done when this was last trumpeted) too much, save to say that, as an ex-whit van man (misspent Univeristy days), I can't help but feel an extra £1.2M might be better spent than on this black hole.

Secretary of State for Transport, Ruth Kelly, today announced an extra £1.2million to train van drivers in greener, safer driving techniques.

The Safe and Fuel Efficient Drivers (SAFED) scheme aims to encourage driving techniques that save fuel, thereby cutting costs and CO2 emissions. Since its launch, the Department for Transport has invested nearly £2.2million in the scheme.

The training has been immensely popular and so far the programme has trained nearly 7,800 drivers. Drivers who completed the training found they achieved an average 16% improvement in miles per gallon, giving a potential annual fuel saving of £3.3million and CO2 emissions reduction of 9,350 tonnes, equivalent to an average of £425 for each van driver and a reduction for CO2 emissions of around 1.2 tonnes.

Ruth Kelly said:

"White van man is turning green. By learning safe, fuel efficient driving techniques, van drivers are playing a vital role in cutting CO2 emissions. They're helping tackle climate change, saving money and improving safety without impacting on customer delivery times

The new money will part fund training for new instructors, new assessors and up to 6,500 drivers over the next three years.

SAFED is a one-day training course involving a mix of classroom and on-the-road tuition. It teaches drivers how techniques such as better use of gears and brakes (avoiding over-revving and unnecessary gear changes), keeping correct braking distances (not braking hard) and better road awareness (seeing junctions in good time) can improve both fuel efficiency and safety.

Fleet managers and van drivers interested in finding out how SAFED for Vans could benefit their business should visit http://www.safed.org.uk and navigate to the 'find a trainer' page, or call 0870 190 8440.

It's a question to me of enviROI. I can't fault the facts, but are they really the best wins for the money? We are talking £3.4M for 10k tonnes of CO2, assuming the figures are right (are we talking employed as well as owner drivers?), along with my maths.

SAFED was originally launched in 2006. It followed a successful pilot project that found significant financial and environmental gains could be made by using advanced driving techniques without any noticeable impact on delivery times.

A series of case studies and guides have also been published by the DfT funded Freight Best Practice programme

Commy time once more

I almost skipped over this - NOWADAYS, IT SEEMS, YOU ARE WHAT YOU DON'T EAT. But then, I didn't.

Hardly the most representative sample, but for my discussions with others on motivating eco-friendly notions of lifestyle reductions, at the very least in terms of waste, still a nifty selection of thoughts.

I have been banging on for a while that, if everyone is so cash rich because they are so time poor, getting 'em to consume less, move less far... and slower... is going to be quite a task. No point having all that money if you can't blow it, hmnn?

Did someone mention Marx?

Every little helps .......

.... or so it would seem.

This from Interactive Investor reports on Tesco's £25 Million investment, in conjunction with the University of Manchester, in setting up the 'Sustainable Consumption Institute' (SCI).

The SCI has a nice aim - to "help both customers and retailers create a sustainable, greener future".

But I can't help raising an eyebrow over some of the 'projects'. E.g. "making paper from chicken feathers and fuelling delivery vans with plastic milk bottles." What???***!!!

"Tesco's chief executive Sir Terry Leahy said the Institute - one of the key elements of its climate change strategy announced in January - was further proof the company's long-term commitment to making a positive contribution to tackling environmental issues."

Well, he would say that, wouldn't he. I can't help suspecting that there's more than a little of 'keeping up with the Jones's' (or perhaps I should say Rose's?), along with a large dollop of greenwash, going on here. And I'm certain that there must be more realistic, and more genuinely planet sustainable ideas, that could be concentrated on with such a huge budget, rather than faffing about trying to make paper from chicken feathers!

ADDENDUM - from Junkk Male

Indy - Tesco funds 'green consumption' studies - Nice press release cut and paste job, guys. In light of what follows, I do share this: 'This is independent research. The industry partner has a right to talk to us about what problems it wants to have addressed, but it cannot manipulate the findings."

But I thought I'd seldom find myself agreeing with (most here from) this lady:

Janet Street-Porter: Spare me these supermarket saints

It's not making our job easier, is it? And what could we do (that's 'DO') with £25M? Note the action verb there. It's important in the context of her conclusion:

None of the parties are prepared to admit that accepting money from retailers to fund education and research just compromises the results.

It also goes to the defensive reaction to such critiques... If they are valid. Are such 'initiatives' helping the overall cause, when this is what can be levelled by major media commentators almost by return. Plugging sprung leaks as you still tilt full speed into icebergs is not good prioritising.

Guardian - Sustainable living, sponsored by Tesco - With soem more views. But, thanks to Dave, you heard it here fi.. er , earlier. I'm erring on the BTN end of the debate. It is a lot of dough. Just wish it went to a better cause.

And in the green corner - Bin Laden!

I missed this from The TimesOnline yesterday, reporting on Osama Bin Laden's latest video appearance on the anniversary of 9/11. A date which still makes me shudder, especially as I should have been in the World Trade Centre on the day of the attack; luckily (for me) my meeting was cancelled a few days beforehand.

Anyway, it would seem that the new Grecian 2000 enhanced version of the leader of Al-Qaeda is standing fair and square in the 'green lobby'.

"The life of all of mankind is in danger because of the global warming resulting to a large degree from the emissions of the factories of the major corporations. Yet despite that, the representative of these corporations in the White House insists on not observing the Kyoto accord".

I suppose that there's a first time for everything - I have to confess that I don't think I can recall ever agreeing with anything in a statement from an international terrorist before!

ADDENDUM - from Junkk Male

Guardian - Can we fight terrorism by reducing CO2 emissions?

So good, he posted it twice!

Pop back a few posts and see one about our being on a long/shortlist for the EAST Awards. It just got a tad better....

Congratulations! Your entry from your organisation to the 2007 EAST Awards has been shortlisted by the Judging Panel for an Environmental and Sustainable Technology (EAST) Award. Once again congratulations on being shortlisted for a 2007 EAST Award from a very competitive entry list.

Paul McBride
Managing Editor
The EAST Journal

...which was nice.

Anita Roddick, R.I.P

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

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'.

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?

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".

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.