Those of you who have watched the growing development (and debate) of bio-diesel may remember 'Bish' from the film "Everything's Cool". He will probably be remembered as almost singlehandedly starting the now rapidly growing bio-diesel market.
This from CNNNews reports on the rapid growth of bio-diesel, to the point where there may be the first two IPOs later this year. Total bio-diesel production in the USA grew from 25 million gallons in 2004 to 250 million last year. The market has more than doubled every year since 2004 and will hit $1 billion this year.
"Biodiesel is the rock star of fuels," says Will Thurmond, author of Biodiesel 2020: A Global Market Survey. "It has moved from Woodstock to Wall Street."
Also it is interesting to note that some of the Big Oil boys are really beginning to get in on the act now - Chevron, ConocoPhillips etc. Hmmmm, that's got my eyebrows twitching; where there are megabucks to be made, the big sharks suddenly appear.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Back scratching
A very nice Junkketeer we know has asked me to help with promoting an environmental charity survey. Happy to oblige, though I did warn her of what I might say.
Seems it's being run on behalf of Global Action Plan, which apparently is the UK's biggest business focused environmental charity. The aim of the survey is see how far IT professionals (that's me out, then) understand environmental issues and what steps they are taking to make their processes more environmentally sustainable. Worth checking back a few posts to our comments on the government's latest wheeze!
I'm cutting and pasting here to report Global Action Plan is keen to determine the baseline on green IT. It has also launched an end user Environmental IT Leadership Team with representatives from chiefs from Ford, the British Medical Association (BMA), Sony UK, John Lewis, E.ON UK, the University of Cumbria and Lloyds TSB to establish a green group that will tackle climate change. I do wonder if this will be hooking up with all the other green groups that seem to sprout around, but there we go. Better than nothing, so long as the enviROI is optimal.
This group, sponsored by solutions provider Logicalis (not sure who is footing whose bill, so I will share the PR love with all names duly dropped), will work on publishing best practices for sustainable IT. I just hope it's not just another manual or PDF on switching off the CPU at night or printing double-sided.
And finally, here is the best bit (if you fancy a trip to the HoP - did I mention we were there last week to collect our Award? - and need an audit, that is): Participants in the survey will be in with a chance to win a free green audit for their company, worth £2,000 and be entered into a draw to win 1 of 10 places at the House of Commons launch of the Green IT report on Monday, 3rd December, 2007.
I just had a go and, well, it's a survey Took about 5 mins, and lots of boxes got ticked. Some did not apply to me or us as we don't actually have an IT Dept, so maybe it was not aimed at us, but it seems a pity that those in the IT world can't seem to separate those who use IT to live and those who live to use IT.
Seems it's being run on behalf of Global Action Plan, which apparently is the UK's biggest business focused environmental charity. The aim of the survey is see how far IT professionals (that's me out, then) understand environmental issues and what steps they are taking to make their processes more environmentally sustainable. Worth checking back a few posts to our comments on the government's latest wheeze!
I'm cutting and pasting here to report Global Action Plan is keen to determine the baseline on green IT. It has also launched an end user Environmental IT Leadership Team with representatives from chiefs from Ford, the British Medical Association (BMA), Sony UK, John Lewis, E.ON UK, the University of Cumbria and Lloyds TSB to establish a green group that will tackle climate change. I do wonder if this will be hooking up with all the other green groups that seem to sprout around, but there we go. Better than nothing, so long as the enviROI is optimal.
This group, sponsored by solutions provider Logicalis (not sure who is footing whose bill, so I will share the PR love with all names duly dropped), will work on publishing best practices for sustainable IT. I just hope it's not just another manual or PDF on switching off the CPU at night or printing double-sided.
And finally, here is the best bit (if you fancy a trip to the HoP - did I mention we were there last week to collect our Award? - and need an audit, that is): Participants in the survey will be in with a chance to win a free green audit for their company, worth £2,000 and be entered into a draw to win 1 of 10 places at the House of Commons launch of the Green IT report on Monday, 3rd December, 2007.
I just had a go and, well, it's a survey Took about 5 mins, and lots of boxes got ticked. Some did not apply to me or us as we don't actually have an IT Dept, so maybe it was not aimed at us, but it seems a pity that those in the IT world can't seem to separate those who use IT to live and those who live to use IT.
That old devil called trust again
So here we have it: In global warming we trust
Seems clear enough. But hold on. Global warming? Not climate change? And what about man made climate change? Or, there again, what about (Possibly/probably) man-worsened climate change?
Nope, at least for the majority of those who graze hereabouts it seems you have to be either a denier OR a believer in just one of two extremes.
Green cannot be viewed simply in terms of black or white. Try it and not only you will get tied up in knots, there'll be plenty willing to wrap themselves around it to a point not even Alexander could cut through the layers of pointless debate that will ensue. Just look above. QED.
There is still one heck of a lot in between the absolutes, and I reckon the best vote is with those who are getting on with DOING and leaving the hot air brigade to knock further spots off each other in their pointless, downward semantic spirals.
Seems the climate is changing. And for the worse. Maybe it's natural, maybe it's not. Maybe personkind is having an influence, maybe not. It sure seems unlikely, as 'we' expand and pollute as we do so, that it's helping much.
Mitigation at the very least seems a decent urgent option now. Reduction quite soon behind. With a few big issues tackled first by the grownups rather than a ton of divisive irrelevancies that let the extremities get excited and gnaw on each other to the distraction of all.
At least, that's my belief. Let's see what 'ist/zi/inger/ier' I get called by the pack this time.
Seems clear enough. But hold on. Global warming? Not climate change? And what about man made climate change? Or, there again, what about (Possibly/probably) man-worsened climate change?
Nope, at least for the majority of those who graze hereabouts it seems you have to be either a denier OR a believer in just one of two extremes.
Green cannot be viewed simply in terms of black or white. Try it and not only you will get tied up in knots, there'll be plenty willing to wrap themselves around it to a point not even Alexander could cut through the layers of pointless debate that will ensue. Just look above. QED.
There is still one heck of a lot in between the absolutes, and I reckon the best vote is with those who are getting on with DOING and leaving the hot air brigade to knock further spots off each other in their pointless, downward semantic spirals.
Seems the climate is changing. And for the worse. Maybe it's natural, maybe it's not. Maybe personkind is having an influence, maybe not. It sure seems unlikely, as 'we' expand and pollute as we do so, that it's helping much.
Mitigation at the very least seems a decent urgent option now. Reduction quite soon behind. With a few big issues tackled first by the grownups rather than a ton of divisive irrelevancies that let the extremities get excited and gnaw on each other to the distraction of all.
At least, that's my belief. Let's see what 'ist/zi/inger/ier' I get called by the pack this time.
Heading for catastrophe?
This from The Guardian is well worth a read.
As usual it has brought the diametrically opposed views out of the cupboard; there are some quite astonishing posts in the comments already.
"Our biggest problem is not global warming but over-population. Our ranks need thinning out a little, and judging by some of the posts here on this supposedly 'intellectual' forum, that may not be such a bad thing."
I particularly like the walking blindfolded towards the edge of a cliff analogy from one poster.
"We, the entire planet, need to start emitting less carbon. Whether global warming is happening now, whether it's happening because of our CO2 is debateable. But the fact remains that AT SOME POINT, the carbon emitted will become a problem. We know the absolute top limit points of that -- it's in tens thousands of ppm, but it is there. And that's the point at which human breathing will become a problem (because your lungs won't be able to diffuse CO2 out of your blood). Long before then we **WILL** cause climate change. The only contention here is whether we're already starting to or not. It's like standing blindfolded before a cliff and arguing about how many more paces we can take forwards; some people think we're right on the edge, some people think we can walk for a bit. But there IS a cliff there."
As usual it has brought the diametrically opposed views out of the cupboard; there are some quite astonishing posts in the comments already.
"Our biggest problem is not global warming but over-population. Our ranks need thinning out a little, and judging by some of the posts here on this supposedly 'intellectual' forum, that may not be such a bad thing."
I particularly like the walking blindfolded towards the edge of a cliff analogy from one poster.
"We, the entire planet, need to start emitting less carbon. Whether global warming is happening now, whether it's happening because of our CO2 is debateable. But the fact remains that AT SOME POINT, the carbon emitted will become a problem. We know the absolute top limit points of that -- it's in tens thousands of ppm, but it is there. And that's the point at which human breathing will become a problem (because your lungs won't be able to diffuse CO2 out of your blood). Long before then we **WILL** cause climate change. The only contention here is whether we're already starting to or not. It's like standing blindfolded before a cliff and arguing about how many more paces we can take forwards; some people think we're right on the edge, some people think we can walk for a bit. But there IS a cliff there."
What has Belgium ever done for us?
Well, set a good example, for one: From mountain to molehill
I'm going over there for a few days in November to try and flog the RE:tie at an exhibition called 'Caps & Closures', which seems as good a place to do it in one shot as I can imagine.
I'm only sorry that I'll doubtless be stuck in a hanger and not get to check out Flanders' range of initiatives.
They seem effective, perhaps because Flanders has "decoupled" waste from economic growth, though with the guys in charge we have here I can't see what any delegation is going to gain from going over there, other than a taste for nifty beer. So while Britain may be particularly interested, the question is in what? We seem great on creating consultants (how many; paid what? by whom?); not so good on actually doing anything.
They key features we know, but simply don't have the will to implement effectively on a national level. All the ways to help people help prevent waste are there... but here?
I reckon we'll see one area where the lessons do get learned: getting people to pay for what they waste. Incineration is also a big cultural hurdle here, and no bonding with a Burgher will get around the fact that over there the people will go for it, and over here they won't. At least not without a fight. And we have different laws on how that gets conducted.
I also note the authorities have communicated the recycling scheme well - not just what they collect, and when, but in leaflets that explain why. I'd be keen to see what they say vs. the tripe we get here... at massive comms cost.
I also like to see such as the scheme flourishing via the Kringwinkel chain of "reuse" stores, in which goods are dismantled and repaired.
I'm going over there for a few days in November to try and flog the RE:tie at an exhibition called 'Caps & Closures', which seems as good a place to do it in one shot as I can imagine.
I'm only sorry that I'll doubtless be stuck in a hanger and not get to check out Flanders' range of initiatives.
They seem effective, perhaps because Flanders has "decoupled" waste from economic growth, though with the guys in charge we have here I can't see what any delegation is going to gain from going over there, other than a taste for nifty beer. So while Britain may be particularly interested, the question is in what? We seem great on creating consultants (how many; paid what? by whom?); not so good on actually doing anything.
They key features we know, but simply don't have the will to implement effectively on a national level. All the ways to help people help prevent waste are there... but here?
I reckon we'll see one area where the lessons do get learned: getting people to pay for what they waste. Incineration is also a big cultural hurdle here, and no bonding with a Burgher will get around the fact that over there the people will go for it, and over here they won't. At least not without a fight. And we have different laws on how that gets conducted.
I also note the authorities have communicated the recycling scheme well - not just what they collect, and when, but in leaflets that explain why. I'd be keen to see what they say vs. the tripe we get here... at massive comms cost.
I also like to see such as the scheme flourishing via the Kringwinkel chain of "reuse" stores, in which goods are dismantled and repaired.
Only 7?
I'm jealous. In Pressure vessel Stop Climate Chaos* is advised to have only seven staff members. Six more than here!
And unless they're all voluntary and working from home, that's gotta be a decent wadge of support coming in £ wise to pay the London weighting and rent alone.
Certainly a lot is being done. So I hope to attract a half dozen or more here one day to see what we can DO with such numbers.
And, if necessary, if it gets things done, I'll do it with anyone so long as they are sincere. Creating barriers seems to me to be bringing in unhelful additional agendas.
I'll be interested in what they feel about Mr. Brown's major commitments to climate this week whilst also not attending the UN conference, as Mr. Bush failed to do so either.
*(is that the same as We can Stop...? If so my indexing is messed up)
And unless they're all voluntary and working from home, that's gotta be a decent wadge of support coming in £ wise to pay the London weighting and rent alone.
Certainly a lot is being done. So I hope to attract a half dozen or more here one day to see what we can DO with such numbers.
And, if necessary, if it gets things done, I'll do it with anyone so long as they are sincere. Creating barriers seems to me to be bringing in unhelful additional agendas.
I'll be interested in what they feel about Mr. Brown's major commitments to climate this week whilst also not attending the UN conference, as Mr. Bush failed to do so either.
*(is that the same as We can Stop...? If so my indexing is messed up)
Big stick - minuscule carrot
According to AutoExpressNews the chancellor is intending to impose a big levy on those who would purchase 'gas-guzzlers', a term which I don't particularly like as it unfortunately hits a large number of people who have little option but to use off-road vehicles, such as farmers.
The source is a supposed leaked Treasury document which outlines a suggested £2000 purchase tax levy, OR, a Vehicle Excise Duty first year increase of £1300, on all vehicles that emit more than 254g/km of CO2 .
"All cars in this category – including the entire Range Rover line-up, all Porsche 911s and most versions of the Mercedes S-Class – would be hit by the proposed £2,000 levy."
Now that's a pretty big stick; but I have to question how much it is intended to ameliorate CO2 emissions as opposed to how much revenue it might generate for the Treasury's coffers? The other point that needs to be made is that anyone who can afford a brand new Range Rover, Porsche 911 or Merc S Class can afford to pay that sort of sum without blinking anyway.
Oh yes, I nearly forgot, the carrot. For those purchasers who buy vehicles that emit less than 100g/km of CO2 there will be a 'rebate' of £2000 (off what? .... the purchase cost, or in ongoing VED reductions?).
OK, that sounds like a nice bit of encouragement to purchase a low emitting vehicle. Unfortunately it leaves you with a choice of either an entirely electric car, such as the G-Wiz, or the one and only current combustion engined vehicle that meets that target, the VW Polo 1.4 TDI BlueMotion.
Sorry, but this is tantamount to a large scale tax grab whilst holding out a minuscule and almost worthless carrot to purchase low CO2 emitting vehicles. What's the betting that as sales of the Bluemotion take off, the Treasury suddenly decides to reduce the 100g/km to something like 80g/km?
ADDENDUM (from Junkk Male) -
Sorry, it's easier for me to add a link here: CAR INDUSTRY THREATENS AD EXODUS OVER CO2 WARNINGS
I have to agree with you, Dave. At best this seems a silly little (and not very original) piece of political point scoring with no real downside (I doubt most owners to be affected are Labour voters. Not just on money terms, either. Here in the boonies the 4x4foraliving guys are not exactly Brownian in their voting motions!).
And, as you say, who trusts (that word) the carrot?. I still hover on an LPG conversion which is already not good on ROI, but if the tax on the fuel gets nudged up because it proves too popular I'm stuffed!
As to the ad piece above that doesn't make sense, unless they are accepting that such things don't help sales. A silly knee jerk in my view, not that I think popping Co2 labels on will make a blind bit of difference.
The source is a supposed leaked Treasury document which outlines a suggested £2000 purchase tax levy, OR, a Vehicle Excise Duty first year increase of £1300, on all vehicles that emit more than 254g/km of CO2 .
"All cars in this category – including the entire Range Rover line-up, all Porsche 911s and most versions of the Mercedes S-Class – would be hit by the proposed £2,000 levy."
Now that's a pretty big stick; but I have to question how much it is intended to ameliorate CO2 emissions as opposed to how much revenue it might generate for the Treasury's coffers? The other point that needs to be made is that anyone who can afford a brand new Range Rover, Porsche 911 or Merc S Class can afford to pay that sort of sum without blinking anyway.
Oh yes, I nearly forgot, the carrot. For those purchasers who buy vehicles that emit less than 100g/km of CO2 there will be a 'rebate' of £2000 (off what? .... the purchase cost, or in ongoing VED reductions?).
OK, that sounds like a nice bit of encouragement to purchase a low emitting vehicle. Unfortunately it leaves you with a choice of either an entirely electric car, such as the G-Wiz, or the one and only current combustion engined vehicle that meets that target, the VW Polo 1.4 TDI BlueMotion.
Sorry, but this is tantamount to a large scale tax grab whilst holding out a minuscule and almost worthless carrot to purchase low CO2 emitting vehicles. What's the betting that as sales of the Bluemotion take off, the Treasury suddenly decides to reduce the 100g/km to something like 80g/km?
ADDENDUM (from Junkk Male) -
Sorry, it's easier for me to add a link here: CAR INDUSTRY THREATENS AD EXODUS OVER CO2 WARNINGS
I have to agree with you, Dave. At best this seems a silly little (and not very original) piece of political point scoring with no real downside (I doubt most owners to be affected are Labour voters. Not just on money terms, either. Here in the boonies the 4x4foraliving guys are not exactly Brownian in their voting motions!).
And, as you say, who trusts (that word) the carrot?. I still hover on an LPG conversion which is already not good on ROI, but if the tax on the fuel gets nudged up because it proves too popular I'm stuffed!
As to the ad piece above that doesn't make sense, unless they are accepting that such things don't help sales. A silly knee jerk in my view, not that I think popping Co2 labels on will make a blind bit of difference.
Barrages and other obstacles
For a long time I've been following in the local papers a discussion about a proposed Severn Barrage. Now it has hit the big time: Inventive compromise may be the answer to dilemma
Coincidentally the man vs. nature has already sparked a small piece already in another blog, this time from waaaay over in California.
There are a few potent causes fighting here. I am afraid that if 'we' are not prepared to do much/anything about our expanding population's (global and national, no inference on certain points made about on this topic recently ) calls on land and resources, the area will be toast (or a shopping centre) one day anyway. And this does not seem to be a trade-off deal. This is (very broadly) free energy as a substitute for carbon-emitting ones. I don't see the birdies winning.
BBC - New study for Severn energy plan - I have to say the Civ. Eng in me thinks this is waaaay cool. And I can see the enviROI shaping up well. But as to the birds... better this than Prescott's heirs sticking a condo on it?
Indy - Some worthwhile views
Indy - 'Strong case' for Severn barrage
Guardian - Barrage of turbines across the Severn could provide 5% of UK's electricity - Could? How can they not know? All the figures must be available.
Guardian Letters (ta, Dave) - very useful input!
Coincidentally the man vs. nature has already sparked a small piece already in another blog, this time from waaaay over in California.
There are a few potent causes fighting here. I am afraid that if 'we' are not prepared to do much/anything about our expanding population's (global and national, no inference on certain points made about on this topic recently ) calls on land and resources, the area will be toast (or a shopping centre) one day anyway. And this does not seem to be a trade-off deal. This is (very broadly) free energy as a substitute for carbon-emitting ones. I don't see the birdies winning.
BBC - New study for Severn energy plan - I have to say the Civ. Eng in me thinks this is waaaay cool. And I can see the enviROI shaping up well. But as to the birds... better this than Prescott's heirs sticking a condo on it?
Indy - Some worthwhile views
Indy - 'Strong case' for Severn barrage
Guardian - Barrage of turbines across the Severn could provide 5% of UK's electricity - Could? How can they not know? All the figures must be available.
Guardian Letters (ta, Dave) - very useful input!
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Taking on the terminator?
This from Counterpunch takes a big side swipe at Arnie, calling him a hypocrite. I'll leave you the reader to decide whether its a fairly warranted statement.
"Arnold Schwarzenegger's address to the United Nations today about global climate change is one of the most blatant examples of hypocrisy that I've ever witnessed."
"This is greenwashing at its absolute worst!"
"There is no doubt that Schwarzenegger is the worst Governor in California history - and we've had some really bad ones - for fish, water and the environment, in spite of his shallow rhetoric proclaiming his 'leadership' in 'the fight against climate change on a world stage'."
Ooo errrr! I bet Arnie's quaking in his boots!
"Arnold Schwarzenegger's address to the United Nations today about global climate change is one of the most blatant examples of hypocrisy that I've ever witnessed."
"This is greenwashing at its absolute worst!"
"There is no doubt that Schwarzenegger is the worst Governor in California history - and we've had some really bad ones - for fish, water and the environment, in spite of his shallow rhetoric proclaiming his 'leadership' in 'the fight against climate change on a world stage'."
Ooo errrr! I bet Arnie's quaking in his boots!
Should be fun
As readers will appreciate, BBC's Newsnight more often than not stirs me to the blogside.
Usually I am abed when it goes out live, but thanks to the whizzbangery of IT in the naughties, I can catch it at leisure the next day.
This in my in-box from Jeremy Paxman (ADD; now online) makes it an almost must watch, followed, with luck, by a 'must told you so. Well, must have 'been telling you so'.
FROM JEREMY PAXMAN
Miliband was interesting because he was trying to lay out what he called the 'Second Wave' of New Labour Foreign Policy. I'll be asking tonight whether this amounts to anything more than forgetting the First Wave.
Not so much 'Not Flash. Just Gordon', more 'Not Tony. So just who cares what the rest of us were doing for the last 10 years?'.
Lions led by donkeys, springs to mind. I'm guessing the BBC don't feel constrained any more by the 'rearranged edit' fiasco, thank heavens. But will it make a blind bit of difference, I wonder?
At least the Nu-Lab comeback should prove entertaining, if they can be bothered.
Indy - This is the reason people don't care about politics - A theme develops?
Usually I am abed when it goes out live, but thanks to the whizzbangery of IT in the naughties, I can catch it at leisure the next day.
This in my in-box from Jeremy Paxman (ADD; now online) makes it an almost must watch, followed, with luck, by a 'must told you so. Well, must have 'been telling you so'.
FROM JEREMY PAXMAN
Miliband was interesting because he was trying to lay out what he called the 'Second Wave' of New Labour Foreign Policy. I'll be asking tonight whether this amounts to anything more than forgetting the First Wave.
Not so much 'Not Flash. Just Gordon', more 'Not Tony. So just who cares what the rest of us were doing for the last 10 years?'.
Lions led by donkeys, springs to mind. I'm guessing the BBC don't feel constrained any more by the 'rearranged edit' fiasco, thank heavens. But will it make a blind bit of difference, I wonder?
At least the Nu-Lab comeback should prove entertaining, if they can be bothered.
Indy - This is the reason people don't care about politics - A theme develops?
You don't love me? You really don't love me?
According to this - The demand for expert generated content - research showed that less than 1 per cent trusted blogs as a reliable source of information.
Say it ain't so!
Especially when... if... 'This trend is further supported by research into the information sources web users consider trustworthy. The BBC is the UK’s most reliable source of information, according to 58 per cent of people who have faith in Auntie to provide accurate news.
If you say so, Bub.
What did and didn't surprise is that Wikipedia is only trusted by 2 per cent of the people surveyed, and recently had to remove swathes of content found to be written by prejudiced individuals. Unlike....?
Well, you know what I think of research. Until I see who asked what of whom, pinches of salt all round. Where's the Tequila?
Say it ain't so!
Especially when... if... 'This trend is further supported by research into the information sources web users consider trustworthy. The BBC is the UK’s most reliable source of information, according to 58 per cent of people who have faith in Auntie to provide accurate news.
If you say so, Bub.
What did and didn't surprise is that Wikipedia is only trusted by 2 per cent of the people surveyed, and recently had to remove swathes of content found to be written by prejudiced individuals. Unlike....?
Well, you know what I think of research. Until I see who asked what of whom, pinches of salt all round. Where's the Tequila?
Man causing climate change - poll headline claims
Large majorities of people across the world agree that humans are causing global warming, a BBC poll indicates.
Now, as all would know, I have a few views on polls; how they are conducted, what the questions are and then how they get applied. I am no statistician, so I am in no position to comment on detailed methodology, but I can cock an eyebrow at how detail gets turned into a sound-bite.
So I do wish that such significant findings, in all their complexity, hadn't quite been offered up in such a way as to give the contrarians the chance to have a go at a headline like that. It surely should read as the subhead does to avoid any charges of trying to sway opinion. It is powerful enough already.
And I note that it's not that man has made and is making things worse, but indeed has caused it. So that perception now has taken hold, and maybe a good thing. But is it proven yet? I don't know if it is. And if shown to be shaky, does such absolutism help or hinder those trying to ease us back to less wasteful ways, or simply hand a 'get out of any responsibility free card' to those needing little incentive to grab such a thing if the science raises doubts on nature's total exclusion from the deal?
And while representatives from about 150 countries, including 80 heads of state or government, were at the meeting, I note it is noted that US President George W Bush was not present. Instead, he is hosting a meeting of 16 "major emitter" countries in Washington on Thursday and Friday.
Who else world-leading emitter-wise, but not mentioned, was not there I wonder? Talk about serving up a distraction on a plate to those who would challenge the motivations of the commissioners? Just give us the facts, and explain them rationally, guys. We don't need to be lead.
And on a final note, what does the team think the actual move to action will be of those strongly moved to respond with... words?
ADDENDUM - speaking of what happens 'twixt headline and what follows:
Guardian Home - Benn rallies US on emissions targets - Do what? Rather, who what?
But click on that to get - Benn calls on US to adopt binding aims on emissions - That's more like it. Nothing like a good call. As to who will pay any more attention this time...
Apparently, 'Mr Benn made his appeal (is that more or less than a call, or better than a rally?) at a climate change summit at the United Nations headquarters in New York... attended by more than 80 heads of state and government...' but '...President George Bush was not at the meeting.'
Now where have I heard that before? Meanwhile, who else wasn't there? Or, for that matter, who was?
Maybe Mr. Brown was less not there than Mr. Bush. Which makes him 'Green God Gordo' by not being something as bad as he could be. Yeah, that'll work.
Guardian - Has the US stand-off run out of steam?
I've read everywhere from the Guardian to the BBC that George Bush did not attend this, but other than Hillary Benn am having trouble finding out which 'world leaders' actually did. Can anyone help?
If this is the 'single, greatest (etc)..' I'd just like to see which of our global great and good didn't feel there was something more pressing at the 'mo.
Guardian - The new climate change pioneer
As the BBC and the Guardian seem to be linking back and forth I have so far gathered that George Bush isn't there, but other than Mr. Benn am having trouble finding out which other 'world leaders' (Does his boss know?) were. Anyone?
Anyway, big up to NZ for some national initiative on the DOING vs. talking front. Maybe it's the perfect entire country for eco-tourism, once the whole flying thing can be addressed.
Mind you, I do have a certain sympathy with those who try and point out certain comparisons need to be matched with a few realities.
Some Singaporean chums once challenged me to explain why the UK could not be more like their city state in terms of economy, transport, etc. I had to point out that if one put a wall round London it would be a pretty rich place with a public tube and bus system that's... well, it would be a pretty rich place.
At least I managed to note that their thirst for oil per head was also top of the list, too. So being small doesn't automatically make it easier to go green.
ADDENDUM - Having had little that made sense from our media here, I have turned to Google. And roamed a world of headlines, from Thailand's Bangkok Post to some Canadian effort. What was first of all interesting was how many had either taken a lead from the same press release, or had a very similar take on it all. Like, word for word.
At least I now know that a fair number of 'world leaders' were there: France, Germany, Canada at least. Plus Al Gore. I also know, A LOT, that George Bush wasn't. Condi Rice was. What I didn't see was that the Prime Minister of the UK also didn't quite make it, but sent our A team instead. For some reason the Chinese just sending their Foreign Minister was OK, too. No word yet on Putin being there or not, or indeed what the Indian contingent comprised.
One thing's for sure, it didn't come across as the be-all-and-end-all that some media seemed to wish it was, but mainly because of the way it was reported.
Grist - Every Momentum Counts
U.N. hosts one-day climate meeting to spur climate-agreement fever
They usually talk sense.
I loved this though: Gathering momentum for a United Nations climate conference in Bali, - at last I can make it up!
And an answer, of sorts: The conference attracted 150 nations, about 80 of which sent at least their heads of state, making it the best-attended climate meeting in U.N. history among high-level officials
Plus a certain, welcome, pragmatism: 'However, since it's being hosted by the binding-agreement-wary U.S., critics see little coming out of the meeting but voluntary actions and vague technology-sharing agreements. Oh, and probably press releases and goodie bags too'. Darn, I forgot to mention the goodie bags. I wonder if Mr. Benn will have spares?
Now, as all would know, I have a few views on polls; how they are conducted, what the questions are and then how they get applied. I am no statistician, so I am in no position to comment on detailed methodology, but I can cock an eyebrow at how detail gets turned into a sound-bite.
So I do wish that such significant findings, in all their complexity, hadn't quite been offered up in such a way as to give the contrarians the chance to have a go at a headline like that. It surely should read as the subhead does to avoid any charges of trying to sway opinion. It is powerful enough already.
And I note that it's not that man has made and is making things worse, but indeed has caused it. So that perception now has taken hold, and maybe a good thing. But is it proven yet? I don't know if it is. And if shown to be shaky, does such absolutism help or hinder those trying to ease us back to less wasteful ways, or simply hand a 'get out of any responsibility free card' to those needing little incentive to grab such a thing if the science raises doubts on nature's total exclusion from the deal?
And while representatives from about 150 countries, including 80 heads of state or government, were at the meeting, I note it is noted that US President George W Bush was not present. Instead, he is hosting a meeting of 16 "major emitter" countries in Washington on Thursday and Friday.
Who else world-leading emitter-wise, but not mentioned, was not there I wonder? Talk about serving up a distraction on a plate to those who would challenge the motivations of the commissioners? Just give us the facts, and explain them rationally, guys. We don't need to be lead.
And on a final note, what does the team think the actual move to action will be of those strongly moved to respond with... words?
ADDENDUM - speaking of what happens 'twixt headline and what follows:
Guardian Home - Benn rallies US on emissions targets - Do what? Rather, who what?
But click on that to get - Benn calls on US to adopt binding aims on emissions - That's more like it. Nothing like a good call. As to who will pay any more attention this time...
Apparently, 'Mr Benn made his appeal (is that more or less than a call, or better than a rally?) at a climate change summit at the United Nations headquarters in New York... attended by more than 80 heads of state and government...' but '...President George Bush was not at the meeting.'
Now where have I heard that before? Meanwhile, who else wasn't there? Or, for that matter, who was?
Maybe Mr. Brown was less not there than Mr. Bush. Which makes him 'Green God Gordo' by not being something as bad as he could be. Yeah, that'll work.
Guardian - Has the US stand-off run out of steam?
I've read everywhere from the Guardian to the BBC that George Bush did not attend this, but other than Hillary Benn am having trouble finding out which 'world leaders' actually did. Can anyone help?
If this is the 'single, greatest (etc)..' I'd just like to see which of our global great and good didn't feel there was something more pressing at the 'mo.
Guardian - The new climate change pioneer
As the BBC and the Guardian seem to be linking back and forth I have so far gathered that George Bush isn't there, but other than Mr. Benn am having trouble finding out which other 'world leaders' (Does his boss know?) were. Anyone?
Anyway, big up to NZ for some national initiative on the DOING vs. talking front. Maybe it's the perfect entire country for eco-tourism, once the whole flying thing can be addressed.
Mind you, I do have a certain sympathy with those who try and point out certain comparisons need to be matched with a few realities.
Some Singaporean chums once challenged me to explain why the UK could not be more like their city state in terms of economy, transport, etc. I had to point out that if one put a wall round London it would be a pretty rich place with a public tube and bus system that's... well, it would be a pretty rich place.
At least I managed to note that their thirst for oil per head was also top of the list, too. So being small doesn't automatically make it easier to go green.
ADDENDUM - Having had little that made sense from our media here, I have turned to Google. And roamed a world of headlines, from Thailand's Bangkok Post to some Canadian effort. What was first of all interesting was how many had either taken a lead from the same press release, or had a very similar take on it all. Like, word for word.
At least I now know that a fair number of 'world leaders' were there: France, Germany, Canada at least. Plus Al Gore. I also know, A LOT, that George Bush wasn't. Condi Rice was. What I didn't see was that the Prime Minister of the UK also didn't quite make it, but sent our A team instead. For some reason the Chinese just sending their Foreign Minister was OK, too. No word yet on Putin being there or not, or indeed what the Indian contingent comprised.
One thing's for sure, it didn't come across as the be-all-and-end-all that some media seemed to wish it was, but mainly because of the way it was reported.
Grist - Every Momentum Counts
U.N. hosts one-day climate meeting to spur climate-agreement fever
They usually talk sense.
I loved this though: Gathering momentum for a United Nations climate conference in Bali, - at last I can make it up!
And an answer, of sorts: The conference attracted 150 nations, about 80 of which sent at least their heads of state, making it the best-attended climate meeting in U.N. history among high-level officials
Plus a certain, welcome, pragmatism: 'However, since it's being hosted by the binding-agreement-wary U.S., critics see little coming out of the meeting but voluntary actions and vague technology-sharing agreements. Oh, and probably press releases and goodie bags too'. Darn, I forgot to mention the goodie bags. I wonder if Mr. Benn will have spares?
Sometimes non-disclosure can tell you a great deal
In the great global warming debate, there has long been a succession of 'experts' wheeled out to denounce any statement suggesting the climate change is anthropogenic in any way. One of these experts is Patrick J. Michaels of the Cato Institute, who has appeared in dozens of media reports, live talk shows and debates in the USA.
This from PR-Watch.Org reports on how Michaels has withdrawn as a witness from a high profile Vermont court case rather than be forced to disclose his sources of funding.
Surely he hadn't got something to hide, had he?
This from PR-Watch.Org reports on how Michaels has withdrawn as a witness from a high profile Vermont court case rather than be forced to disclose his sources of funding.
Surely he hadn't got something to hide, had he?
Wot 'e sed
Also from the Indy Letters Page, this time from a former Chairperson: More recycling of plastic water bottles
Bearing in mind the Indy and others are trying to ban this method of packaging for this source of fluid, I'll just highlight a few key bits:
Cahal Milmo's article "Bottled drinks companies under pressure to boost recycling rates" (18 September) demonstrated the commitment of soft-drinks and bottled-water companies to deal with the ecological impact of "wasted" plastic bottles, particularly PET (polyethylene terephthalate).
PET plastic is one of the best materials for transporting and retailing soft drinks and alcoholic beverages. Its manufacturing process is ideal for on-site production, with the final bottle being exceptionally strong, flexible and lightweight. It meets the needs of producers and distributors, as well as the consumer, being safe in the home and convenient to carry; and it can be recycled.
What is wrong is that few governments are able to deliver effective recycling systems. The UK's landfill treatment of waste is disastrous. PET has a "long life", which is not good news in a landfill but it can now be recycled to "food grade" standard with more efficiency than glass. Already some UK and European bottled-water brands incorporate recycled PET in their new bottle production. The UK lags behind, largely because our plastics waste is not efficiently "streamed" so there is a shortage of "clean" UK PET waste for recycling. However, now the UK's first PET recycling plant has started operations supply should improve.
Ian Hall
Former Chairman, the Natural Mineral Water Association
Bearing in mind the Indy and others are trying to ban this method of packaging for this source of fluid, I'll just highlight a few key bits:
Cahal Milmo's article "Bottled drinks companies under pressure to boost recycling rates" (18 September) demonstrated the commitment of soft-drinks and bottled-water companies to deal with the ecological impact of "wasted" plastic bottles, particularly PET (polyethylene terephthalate).
PET plastic is one of the best materials for transporting and retailing soft drinks and alcoholic beverages. Its manufacturing process is ideal for on-site production, with the final bottle being exceptionally strong, flexible and lightweight. It meets the needs of producers and distributors, as well as the consumer, being safe in the home and convenient to carry; and it can be recycled.
What is wrong is that few governments are able to deliver effective recycling systems. The UK's landfill treatment of waste is disastrous. PET has a "long life", which is not good news in a landfill but it can now be recycled to "food grade" standard with more efficiency than glass. Already some UK and European bottled-water brands incorporate recycled PET in their new bottle production. The UK lags behind, largely because our plastics waste is not efficiently "streamed" so there is a shortage of "clean" UK PET waste for recycling. However, now the UK's first PET recycling plant has started operations supply should improve.
Ian Hall
Former Chairman, the Natural Mineral Water Association
In the Red
I noticed this in the Indy Letters page: Time is short to avoid a new mass extinction of species
Now I know that I'm easily impressed by titles, so I accord Prof. & Dr. perhaps more than I should, but this makes for interesting reading. I'd never heard of the Red List 'til now.
Read behind the lines of this: if a successor species exists that's able to understand [extinction] at all, as having had a completely new cause: humanity. There'll be an extremely thin layer of rock dividing deeper levels full of diverse fossils from shallower levels with hardly any. The marker layer will contain abundant plastic polymer molecules, radioactive decay products from artificial nuclear fusion, and distinctive concentrations of metals.
I don't know if the author means it this way, but my main take is that are simply too darn many of us. The rest are consequences of that. Nice to see our political leaders have their priorities right, then. Not.
Now I know that I'm easily impressed by titles, so I accord Prof. & Dr. perhaps more than I should, but this makes for interesting reading. I'd never heard of the Red List 'til now.
Read behind the lines of this: if a successor species exists that's able to understand [extinction] at all, as having had a completely new cause: humanity. There'll be an extremely thin layer of rock dividing deeper levels full of diverse fossils from shallower levels with hardly any. The marker layer will contain abundant plastic polymer molecules, radioactive decay products from artificial nuclear fusion, and distinctive concentrations of metals.
I don't know if the author means it this way, but my main take is that are simply too darn many of us. The rest are consequences of that. Nice to see our political leaders have their priorities right, then. Not.
A nice little place in the sun
I clicked on this honestly expecting something else: More shabby delaying tactics
No, not the 'big issue' of will he/won't he?
It starts: All the recent scientific evidence suggests that the process of climate change is occurring at a faster pace than previously predicted.
Meanwhile, our Dear Leader has made, by all accounts 'A good start' (well, ignoring the last 10 years I guess) according to most chattering class media, based on all I can see are a collection of puff-piece 'must do's, must do betters, looking intos and not acceptables - Indy Leader: The Prime Minister's speech was full of stirring conviction but gave little away. Well, D'uh. Maybe saying nothing is getting a bit tired, if still proving effective on some.
Mr. Bush was not the only one indulging in his usual shabby delaying tactics. Or did not turn up to the UN meeting. And while the world's largest economy may refuse to engage honestly with the crisis in an abnegation of leadership of epic and scandalous proportions, it's not the only one.
I really could care less about whether there is an election now or later, and that our leadership and the media that serve them in the Westminster Village can say they care about issues rather than playing silly games, whilst playing the silliest games of all and addressing little but trivia, does make me wonder about the sense of proportion this side of the pond as well.
Green Party - Brown is kicking climate change into the long grass - That will be short, Brown grass at this rate.
Time precludes me from doing much other hunting and gathering (and verifying), so I'll leave it to these guys. I can't say I can argue much.
'...instead of changing the Climate Change Bill , he's chosen to kick it into the long grass by leaving it for the climate change committee when it's eventually established. We don't have time for yet more commissions and reviews, for more political delay.'
"Worse than that, Brown's speech failed to indicate any new, effective policy measures on climate change, which are desperately needed after a decade of inaction and failing policies from his government.'
No, not the 'big issue' of will he/won't he?
It starts: All the recent scientific evidence suggests that the process of climate change is occurring at a faster pace than previously predicted.
Meanwhile, our Dear Leader has made, by all accounts 'A good start' (well, ignoring the last 10 years I guess) according to most chattering class media, based on all I can see are a collection of puff-piece 'must do's, must do betters, looking intos and not acceptables - Indy Leader: The Prime Minister's speech was full of stirring conviction but gave little away. Well, D'uh. Maybe saying nothing is getting a bit tired, if still proving effective on some.
Mr. Bush was not the only one indulging in his usual shabby delaying tactics. Or did not turn up to the UN meeting. And while the world's largest economy may refuse to engage honestly with the crisis in an abnegation of leadership of epic and scandalous proportions, it's not the only one.
I really could care less about whether there is an election now or later, and that our leadership and the media that serve them in the Westminster Village can say they care about issues rather than playing silly games, whilst playing the silliest games of all and addressing little but trivia, does make me wonder about the sense of proportion this side of the pond as well.
Green Party - Brown is kicking climate change into the long grass - That will be short, Brown grass at this rate.
Time precludes me from doing much other hunting and gathering (and verifying), so I'll leave it to these guys. I can't say I can argue much.
'...instead of changing the Climate Change Bill , he's chosen to kick it into the long grass by leaving it for the climate change committee when it's eventually established. We don't have time for yet more commissions and reviews, for more political delay.'
"Worse than that, Brown's speech failed to indicate any new, effective policy measures on climate change, which are desperately needed after a decade of inaction and failing policies from his government.'
Monday, September 24, 2007
Shouldn't do what it says on the tin
Food Flight! The Argument Over Flying Organic Food - Is one of those that in most ways is sad, but in others make you giggle when you shouldn't.
Just how the Soil Association can figure removing an organic label from something airflown defeats me purely as a matter of language. The two are different, and distinct.
But it also shows the knots the various competing nanny-movements are getting themselves into, and dragging us down with them as well.
Especially when I read this: We at TreeHugger would hope that viable alternative jet fuels or solar powered planes or those using zero-emission fuel cell technology would come into play before it comes to that.
Solar powered planes! Today I am having trouble lighting a bulb with a 1sqm array.
Indy - It would be neither fair nor helpful to ban all air freight
I'm not sure '...only one tenth of carbon emissions from food transportation-, and growing is quite the thing to dismiss.
And while I agree that wasting less food would be far more effective I just wonder how? In fact, taking our own family, some of the most vilified packaging initiatives seem to be helping: individual salad or one person portions, as examples.
The rest is fair discussion.
Indy letters - Food air-freighted from Africa
Just how the Soil Association can figure removing an organic label from something airflown defeats me purely as a matter of language. The two are different, and distinct.
But it also shows the knots the various competing nanny-movements are getting themselves into, and dragging us down with them as well.
Especially when I read this: We at TreeHugger would hope that viable alternative jet fuels or solar powered planes or those using zero-emission fuel cell technology would come into play before it comes to that.
Solar powered planes! Today I am having trouble lighting a bulb with a 1sqm array.
Indy - It would be neither fair nor helpful to ban all air freight
I'm not sure '...only one tenth of carbon emissions from food transportation-, and growing is quite the thing to dismiss.
And while I agree that wasting less food would be far more effective I just wonder how? In fact, taking our own family, some of the most vilified packaging initiatives seem to be helping: individual salad or one person portions, as examples.
The rest is fair discussion.
Indy letters - Food air-freighted from Africa
One man's issue of conscience can be another's meal
Having lived in Asia, I have seen first hand how other cultures do their thing. And cope. I have also seen how predominantly Western sensibilities can lob a big ethical spanner in a very complex works: The ‘carbon offset’ child labourers
So when I saw this headline I thought 'Oo, 'eck, here we go again'. 'Better dead so one can feel fine, than fed and spoil the luvvies' bleeding heart wine' was how some viewed the activities of a few liberal groups crashing about the jungle in days of old. It's a tricky one, but to some kids not having a job was worse than having a rotten one.
This piece seems a bit of a stretch, though. Even with my faith in low to no provenance-checked carbon buy-offs so well entrenched.
But I really can't see how 'helping persuade' families to give up labour-saving (and cost sucking) diesel pumps is so awful. I guess it depends on what is meant by 'help persuade'.
Which may be explained (though I doubt soon, here or anywhere) by the Indian experts who have criticised the scheme, saying it forces anyone to do anything. The bit about travellers I'll go with.
But then we get to the Old Ming sells his Jag to prove he's green issue, namely: “It’s not being monitored properly. It’s not reducing emissions. People are selling their diesel pumps to others who are using them.”
That does warrant a look, and frankly outweighs the several awards. And if four reports had identified major benefits, maybe they're all worth looking at in more depth.
So when I saw this headline I thought 'Oo, 'eck, here we go again'. 'Better dead so one can feel fine, than fed and spoil the luvvies' bleeding heart wine' was how some viewed the activities of a few liberal groups crashing about the jungle in days of old. It's a tricky one, but to some kids not having a job was worse than having a rotten one.
This piece seems a bit of a stretch, though. Even with my faith in low to no provenance-checked carbon buy-offs so well entrenched.
But I really can't see how 'helping persuade' families to give up labour-saving (and cost sucking) diesel pumps is so awful. I guess it depends on what is meant by 'help persuade'.
Which may be explained (though I doubt soon, here or anywhere) by the Indian experts who have criticised the scheme, saying it forces anyone to do anything. The bit about travellers I'll go with.
But then we get to the Old Ming sells his Jag to prove he's green issue, namely: “It’s not being monitored properly. It’s not reducing emissions. People are selling their diesel pumps to others who are using them.”
That does warrant a look, and frankly outweighs the several awards. And if four reports had identified major benefits, maybe they're all worth looking at in more depth.
There's what is. There's what might be. And then there's what probably should be.
I have 'do what?!' sensors. And when I read something like this they get put on alert: ‘Fertilising’ oceans with iron may combat climate change
Now I like science along with the next fellow. I also really like things that can help. But when I see something that 'may' work being written up so factually, especially when it's about a short-term mitigation 'solution' of dubious merit that impacts the rest of the planet, I do wonder why it's up there.
It's only later you get to find out that there are some down sides. Mind you, lobbing a ton of car in to get back 100,000 tons of C02 seems like a deal... if it works. Maybe we could set up a ramp at Land's End. Furthest out gets a prize. I know, a trip to the Antarctic!
Meanwhile this, which I saw in passing, seemed more of a worry: Rapeseed biofuel ‘produces more greenhouse gas than oil or petrol’ - then you read the comments. What to believe?
Tinkers those journos, eh?
Now I like science along with the next fellow. I also really like things that can help. But when I see something that 'may' work being written up so factually, especially when it's about a short-term mitigation 'solution' of dubious merit that impacts the rest of the planet, I do wonder why it's up there.
It's only later you get to find out that there are some down sides. Mind you, lobbing a ton of car in to get back 100,000 tons of C02 seems like a deal... if it works. Maybe we could set up a ramp at Land's End. Furthest out gets a prize. I know, a trip to the Antarctic!
Meanwhile this, which I saw in passing, seemed more of a worry: Rapeseed biofuel ‘produces more greenhouse gas than oil or petrol’ - then you read the comments. What to believe?
Tinkers those journos, eh?
The cause now seeking a celeb may be found at...
Speaking of celebs (well some in the big business world seem to be accorded that accolade), I found this an interesting 3rd party view on just what it all achieves: Look at us, doing good
Now, no one can or has arched an eyebrow more and higher than me on who bolts themselves to what with questionable consequences and even worse motivations, but to have a skewering from within ranks was novel.
I even pop in a picture I'd cut out last week while we aware in London with a view to going 'OMG, I must get some of those!'
You have to love this, from one of the best examples: “I do Third World, I’ve been doing Third World since 1994,”
So here's a website for those who want to give in a targeted, intelligent and private way, rather than those who only ever get their chequebook out with their tiara: the Big Give
It will be interesting to see how well it does (I guess by definition we won't see much about from whom), and how much support the parasite industries feel like supporting it either, beyond this piece.
More on Hydrogen
I could not help but note that at the awards on Friday (love saying that) one of the co-winners was Citroen, in a category with a few other big names doing all sorts of eco stuff.
Thing is, I don't think they do much involving anything other than small cars going a long way on existing fuels. Interesting.
Anyways, last week Jeremy Clarkson was waxing lyrical about hydrogen. This week there are some replies. I was surprised, but as one come from a Professor of Engineering, it is worth keeping one's mind open. Especially this:
It takes slightly more energy to produce hydrogen by splitting water (the only means we have of obtaining it), than is produced when the hydrogen is recombined by burning it in an engine.
I wonder if we'll hear more on this. Doubt we'll see Stuart Rose going to Plan C5 too soon, though.
ADDENDUM -
As it is provoking a worthy and fascinating discussion, here's a new one for fun:
BBC - Hydrogen powered bus is showcased
'Depending on how it is produced, hydrogen fuel is a clean, green source of power that can be easily stored.
The bus is powered by a cell which uses hydrogen as it fuel, cutting out the need for non-environmentally friendly fuels, the university said.'
... depending on how it is produced, then? Which means it is...?
This is all valuable research, to be sure, but the fudge on its current eco-friendliness is a thorn in my view that mars the narrative.
Thing is, I don't think they do much involving anything other than small cars going a long way on existing fuels. Interesting.
Anyways, last week Jeremy Clarkson was waxing lyrical about hydrogen. This week there are some replies. I was surprised, but as one come from a Professor of Engineering, it is worth keeping one's mind open. Especially this:
It takes slightly more energy to produce hydrogen by splitting water (the only means we have of obtaining it), than is produced when the hydrogen is recombined by burning it in an engine.
I wonder if we'll hear more on this. Doubt we'll see Stuart Rose going to Plan C5 too soon, though.
ADDENDUM -
As it is provoking a worthy and fascinating discussion, here's a new one for fun:
BBC - Hydrogen powered bus is showcased
'Depending on how it is produced, hydrogen fuel is a clean, green source of power that can be easily stored.
The bus is powered by a cell which uses hydrogen as it fuel, cutting out the need for non-environmentally friendly fuels, the university said.'
... depending on how it is produced, then? Which means it is...?
This is all valuable research, to be sure, but the fudge on its current eco-friendliness is a thorn in my view that mars the narrative.
There are rules, and then there are rules made to break your faith in the system
As I think Transport for London were a co-sponsor of the Awards, Friday was not the night to have a go at them or anything, but I was not best impressed to find that, having arrived (yes, we went by car - try getting back to Ross at night any other way) at 5.30pm and inadvertently passing into the C-zone (and the actual signage being VERY unclear to those not from London who may not be aware of the 'rules'), by obviously having to wait 'ti the next day to pay our fee (the House of Lords not being a major retailer of such things) we'd been stung another £2 (on top of £8) for the privilege. Why? There is no reason I can see other than sheer, naked, greed.
Also, as we are on the not so small matter of legislation and the public it serves, on the news I heard that 'forgetting' who was driving if snapped by a robot is now going to be made an offence. My wife and I swapped several times en route home to stay fresh. We have no clue who was in which seat when. yet we are guilty until we can prove... er, no... we are just guilty. This is madness.
And how many pols in our 'Houses of' are prone to having no recollection of events by way of getting out of them. That is sheer hypocrisy.
Also, as we are on the not so small matter of legislation and the public it serves, on the news I heard that 'forgetting' who was driving if snapped by a robot is now going to be made an offence. My wife and I swapped several times en route home to stay fresh. We have no clue who was in which seat when. yet we are guilty until we can prove... er, no... we are just guilty. This is madness.
And how many pols in our 'Houses of' are prone to having no recollection of events by way of getting out of them. That is sheer hypocrisy.
DEAR LEADER
Putting words in Gordon's mouth - what he does with them is another matter.
Labour 07: A range of opinion-formers and campaigners says what they'd like to see the prime minister address in his conference speech. And you?
Dear Mr. Brown,
As you've had a wee while to figure some stuff out, and do at last seem moved to tackle them, I'd be keen to hear what's the plan with what some (including your predecessor) seem (well, TB has gone off on other fun and games, I guess) to think is a pretty major issue, namely climate change?
Thing is, this neat little collection of 'opinion-formers' (Really? By whose measure?) and campaigners (I guess it depends on who gets asked) above seems to have avoided even mentioning it, as have all bar one (so far) posters.
Is it therefore as a irrelevant in the great scheme of things as this deafening silence would seem to indicate, or simply not too convenient to think about (much less address right now, well, until later) in the scramble for power?
The current lack of motivation on the part of the general public becomes ever more easy to explain in light of such woeful fudging.
My understanding is that doing nothing was/is/won't be an option, and while it may seem a nifty way to hit the high points in the polls by having no stance on anything, at least for now, I'd really appreciate some leadership. Playing coy with 'your' next election is a game to play; playing fast and loose with my kids' futures isn't.
I really am intrigued as to how what some are saying is the greatest threat 'we' face isn't an agenda item. Who knows what I don't?
BBC - World leaders at climate summit - And they would be...?
BBC - Brown refuses to end poll fever -And who has this sickness? Not I!
BBC - Decision not taken? - Ahhhhh, so.
Guardian - Brown urges US to accept carbon limits - Ahhhh, an 'urge'. That'll do it. Meanwhile, if we can get back home a mo'...
If that letter is his most significant statement to date on the matter, one can only imagine what would happened if he was too focused elsewhere to be much bothered.
I am grateful to Adam of CNET (more on them soon) for the link.
Labour 07: A range of opinion-formers and campaigners says what they'd like to see the prime minister address in his conference speech. And you?
Dear Mr. Brown,
As you've had a wee while to figure some stuff out, and do at last seem moved to tackle them, I'd be keen to hear what's the plan with what some (including your predecessor) seem (well, TB has gone off on other fun and games, I guess) to think is a pretty major issue, namely climate change?
Thing is, this neat little collection of 'opinion-formers' (Really? By whose measure?) and campaigners (I guess it depends on who gets asked) above seems to have avoided even mentioning it, as have all bar one (so far) posters.
Is it therefore as a irrelevant in the great scheme of things as this deafening silence would seem to indicate, or simply not too convenient to think about (much less address right now, well, until later) in the scramble for power?
The current lack of motivation on the part of the general public becomes ever more easy to explain in light of such woeful fudging.
My understanding is that doing nothing was/is/won't be an option, and while it may seem a nifty way to hit the high points in the polls by having no stance on anything, at least for now, I'd really appreciate some leadership. Playing coy with 'your' next election is a game to play; playing fast and loose with my kids' futures isn't.
I really am intrigued as to how what some are saying is the greatest threat 'we' face isn't an agenda item. Who knows what I don't?
BBC - World leaders at climate summit - And they would be...?
BBC - Brown refuses to end poll fever -And who has this sickness? Not I!
BBC - Decision not taken? - Ahhhhh, so.
Guardian - Brown urges US to accept carbon limits - Ahhhh, an 'urge'. That'll do it. Meanwhile, if we can get back home a mo'...
If that letter is his most significant statement to date on the matter, one can only imagine what would happened if he was too focused elsewhere to be much bothered.
I am grateful to Adam of CNET (more on them soon) for the link.
The equations of living
Some of these new equations of living are very funny, some quite quirky. Check them out on the mini slide show on the ClimateChangeAction blog. I particularly like the one for Greenwash.
Greenwash = Words divided by Deeds
Greenwash = Words divided by Deeds
Riding the waves
The UK government has granted planning permission for what is being billed as the world's first large scale wave farm. As reported by EDIE, the wave farm, 15 miles off the coast, should generate some 20MegaWatts, thereby providing up to 3% of Cornwall's domestic electricity needs once operational in 2009.
If this works well, perhaps, in another couple of decades or so, we'll see these all around the UK's coast, probably alongside a forest of offshore wind farms.
If this works well, perhaps, in another couple of decades or so, we'll see these all around the UK's coast, probably alongside a forest of offshore wind farms.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
RESULT!
Well... veni, munchie, didn't we... do well!
I have to say one of the more glittering occasions I've have ever attended.
Prior to the awards we had a private tour of the Houses of Lords and Commons, and very interesting it was too! I stood right at the point that our Leader stands (sitting not allowed as the leather can't take too much, and in any case who knows what lurks underneath), and forgot to have my picture taken. Ah well.
That lack of photo archiving is made up for below, and when the 'official' shots arrive we'll blow that trumpet, too. Along with fellow winners such as Citroen and Tesco, so we were in good company.
All, in all, a worthy night out. Thank you EAST Journal.
I have to say one of the more glittering occasions I've have ever attended.
Prior to the awards we had a private tour of the Houses of Lords and Commons, and very interesting it was too! I stood right at the point that our Leader stands (sitting not allowed as the leather can't take too much, and in any case who knows what lurks underneath), and forgot to have my picture taken. Ah well.
That lack of photo archiving is made up for below, and when the 'official' shots arrive we'll blow that trumpet, too. Along with fellow winners such as Citroen and Tesco, so we were in good company.
All, in all, a worthy night out. Thank you EAST Journal.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Debate in this country sucks. No it doesn't.. yes it...
Readers will have no doubt gathered by now I'm a gobby sod. Not just here, but elsewhere (usually cc'd here too in case I get 'moderated').
By virtue of birth, parenting, education, travel, nature and nurture, I have ended up with views. And I often like to share them.
I'd like to think the way I do it is as inclusive as possible, and do try to think of myself as relatively 'centric' in most things, though I do stray in various directions (or back the other way if I change my mind... it is allowed). And as these can vary an awful lot between various topics/issues, I really... REALLY get irritated when some clown tries to find a neat pigeonhole that somehow manages in their minds to encompass all that they think I feel about health, defence, religion, climate change, etc.
And that seems to be happening a lot in the blogosphere, with a worrying trend to even more tackle the player than address the ball. Not that this is a new phenomenon, as our able pols are showing at the moment. More Chis Moyles than Winston Churchill in the Westminster Village and studios that they dash to.
The Internet has indeed revolutionised the exchange and discussion of information. No more are we served up what we are thought to want, or need, by a select group who were no more put in charge of such things than we ourselves have been. They just ended up in a relatively better position to broadcast their thoughts to us all. Many, sadly, mistook the position they were in and the entity that made them known as being less important than they were/are themselves. I know of few who would get where they are without '...from the xx' in the intro.
So we come to matters of trust. And an awful lot of the more traditional organs of education and information have been found wanting in this regard. Call it bias, lack of balance or whatever, the fact is that by selective editing even accurate facts can be presented in the best way to support whatever the creator wishes. For instance, I just watched an edition of the BBC's navel gazing dawn slot Newswatch and was surprised to see the Planet Relief issue dredged up again. Just two viewers, selected lord alone how, and the thing was debated in terms of whether or not climate change is happening or not. To the best of my knowledge that was never the issue (certainly not for me); as it was certainly initially 'sold' as another celeb-style hooly in the vein of Live Earth. The way this came across was the muzzling of an educational documentary. What was all that about?
This is where the Internet is great. Because pretty quick you can get access to some stuff that shows that there is a whole other story out there. And, in some cases, makes a story of why the first story ended up the way it did. It's a fact of modern life. I don't like that it is happening, but I know it is and so I adapt and move on.
My mistake has been to engage too closely on occasion. There really is no point (save for some places where risking a contact URL can be worth it to gain converts to the cause visiting and signing up if they like what one has to say) pitching in.
The views are too entrenched and the people espousing them too self-absorbed to even contemplate allowing another point in. I have mentioned this need for tribal belonging before. Hence you get those on, say, BBC is Biased who think all who doubt them are left-wingers, and those on say, Guardian CiF who think those who would disagree with them are right wingers. And usually there is a hefty dollop of pejorative speculation without any hint of substantiation thrown in to muddy the soup some more. I have actually seen on one such the words 'we have spoken', when referring to a collection of less than two hundred (and ignoring the fact that not all of them did actually agree), when calling for the censure of a publication's columnist. The logic seemed to be that he had drifted from the club line, and hence needed to be ejected.
This is why I fear slightly for debate. Because not only do all these factions believe they are 'the ones', there are those (who should know better but with little time to delve more as they should) who are letting this minute little bunch hold even the modicum of sway that they don't deserve. This is no electorate. These are all, by definition, groups of people, admittedly passionate and often clever, who can and will do all they can to see their views prevail.
So even if I see 99 out of a 100 say black to another's white, I will first try and see how they come to this view, and support it objectively, before according it any value. And, in any case, from this very room I can crank up at least a dozen variations of 'me' to say what I think, disagree with it, support it and back again, all with different IP addresses if I wish. So numbers mean nothing. Which is why internet petitions are plain daft.
Take this as a typical comment: 'You types do not get it. The British public regard you ...' on Newsnight, which gets more posts on the naming of a pet than climate change, and can when passions stir manage all of 200 tops (for a national broadcaster), usually from the same suspects (inc. yours truly). Hardly the 'British public', eh?
I will be cutting right back on the pitching in to these troll fests from now on, but will still maintain a watching brief as they can throw up useful leads.
But... accord any of them, even those moderated by major media, more than passing respect as reliable sources of subjective information or reasonably objective opinion...? Or even as anything like a reasonable barometer of how folk really think...?
You are 'aving a larf.
By virtue of birth, parenting, education, travel, nature and nurture, I have ended up with views. And I often like to share them.
I'd like to think the way I do it is as inclusive as possible, and do try to think of myself as relatively 'centric' in most things, though I do stray in various directions (or back the other way if I change my mind... it is allowed). And as these can vary an awful lot between various topics/issues, I really... REALLY get irritated when some clown tries to find a neat pigeonhole that somehow manages in their minds to encompass all that they think I feel about health, defence, religion, climate change, etc.
And that seems to be happening a lot in the blogosphere, with a worrying trend to even more tackle the player than address the ball. Not that this is a new phenomenon, as our able pols are showing at the moment. More Chis Moyles than Winston Churchill in the Westminster Village and studios that they dash to.
The Internet has indeed revolutionised the exchange and discussion of information. No more are we served up what we are thought to want, or need, by a select group who were no more put in charge of such things than we ourselves have been. They just ended up in a relatively better position to broadcast their thoughts to us all. Many, sadly, mistook the position they were in and the entity that made them known as being less important than they were/are themselves. I know of few who would get where they are without '...from the xx' in the intro.
So we come to matters of trust. And an awful lot of the more traditional organs of education and information have been found wanting in this regard. Call it bias, lack of balance or whatever, the fact is that by selective editing even accurate facts can be presented in the best way to support whatever the creator wishes. For instance, I just watched an edition of the BBC's navel gazing dawn slot Newswatch and was surprised to see the Planet Relief issue dredged up again. Just two viewers, selected lord alone how, and the thing was debated in terms of whether or not climate change is happening or not. To the best of my knowledge that was never the issue (certainly not for me); as it was certainly initially 'sold' as another celeb-style hooly in the vein of Live Earth. The way this came across was the muzzling of an educational documentary. What was all that about?
This is where the Internet is great. Because pretty quick you can get access to some stuff that shows that there is a whole other story out there. And, in some cases, makes a story of why the first story ended up the way it did. It's a fact of modern life. I don't like that it is happening, but I know it is and so I adapt and move on.
My mistake has been to engage too closely on occasion. There really is no point (save for some places where risking a contact URL can be worth it to gain converts to the cause visiting and signing up if they like what one has to say) pitching in.
The views are too entrenched and the people espousing them too self-absorbed to even contemplate allowing another point in. I have mentioned this need for tribal belonging before. Hence you get those on, say, BBC is Biased who think all who doubt them are left-wingers, and those on say, Guardian CiF who think those who would disagree with them are right wingers. And usually there is a hefty dollop of pejorative speculation without any hint of substantiation thrown in to muddy the soup some more. I have actually seen on one such the words 'we have spoken', when referring to a collection of less than two hundred (and ignoring the fact that not all of them did actually agree), when calling for the censure of a publication's columnist. The logic seemed to be that he had drifted from the club line, and hence needed to be ejected.
This is why I fear slightly for debate. Because not only do all these factions believe they are 'the ones', there are those (who should know better but with little time to delve more as they should) who are letting this minute little bunch hold even the modicum of sway that they don't deserve. This is no electorate. These are all, by definition, groups of people, admittedly passionate and often clever, who can and will do all they can to see their views prevail.
So even if I see 99 out of a 100 say black to another's white, I will first try and see how they come to this view, and support it objectively, before according it any value. And, in any case, from this very room I can crank up at least a dozen variations of 'me' to say what I think, disagree with it, support it and back again, all with different IP addresses if I wish. So numbers mean nothing. Which is why internet petitions are plain daft.
Take this as a typical comment: 'You types do not get it. The British public regard you ...' on Newsnight, which gets more posts on the naming of a pet than climate change, and can when passions stir manage all of 200 tops (for a national broadcaster), usually from the same suspects (inc. yours truly). Hardly the 'British public', eh?
I will be cutting right back on the pitching in to these troll fests from now on, but will still maintain a watching brief as they can throw up useful leads.
But... accord any of them, even those moderated by major media, more than passing respect as reliable sources of subjective information or reasonably objective opinion...? Or even as anything like a reasonable barometer of how folk really think...?
You are 'aving a larf.
Arctic Ice Watch - Update
Following on from our last report, the rapid disappearance of the Arctic's ice cover finally seems to have ceased. The NSIDC reports that, based on the 5 day moving average that they use, the minimum ice coverage occured about the 16th September. (Note that they do point out that at this time of year it is still possible for some additional ice loss to occur.)
On this date the ice extent coverage was 4.13 million square kilometers (1.59 million square miles) which appears to be the 2007 minimum. The five-day 2005 minimum (the previous record low) was 5.32 million square kilometers (2.05 million square miles) in 2005, which has been shattered by 1.19 million square kilometers (460,000 square miles). That's an area of ice less than before that is roughly the size of Texas and California combined, or nearly five United Kingdoms.
On top of that, the fabled North West passage has been largely navigable for just over 5 weeks, something that has not occurred in recorded human history. Even the North-East passage has only been blocked by a few kilometres of ice this year.
Whichever side of the climate change debate you fall on (man-made, natural or man enhanced natural), the evidence that the planet is warming significantly and rapidly is now almost unarguable.
What on earth will the next few decades bring about for the Arctic? The Costa Del Greenland perhaps?
'Talking, talking, talking, happy talk...'
'...talk about things we'd like to do!' Green language Alison Benjamin on how green issues are changing our language
What green terms do you think should be added to the dictionary?
I was going to say I don't really care so long as they get beyond terms pretty quick smart, and translate into action.
But as you've asked, I give you: enviROI.
It's the Return on Investment of any initiative or action to the planet's well-being. If CO2 (and a few other greenhouses gasses) is the accepted measure of what's doing us in, then all I ask for the sake of my kids' futures is that whatever it takes to get something out there it is mitigated and then exceeded by the net benefits of existing vs. getting made, operating and disposed of at the end.
It need not have a great financial ROI, though this must be viewed in comparison to other initiatives which could be funded that have better enviROIs.
Now, would any politician, activist, quango board member, head of industry, media commentator or other talking head with a career to forge, cause to promote, target to meet, subsidy to exploit or rating to drive up please explain to me in ways I can understand and act upon, which of what's on offer will deliver such a thing in a timeframe that won't talk us past the tipping point I hear so much about?
I'm gunning first simply for respites such as preventing deforestation internationally (rather than paying a bunch of sharp suits to plant lots more new ones as a salve, which means, as you infer, that SOD is OFF) and supporting any waste reduction systems such as insulation programmes nationally. Plus a few more I can think of that are here, now and do stuff that works with clear benefit to person and planet in the form of viable reduction and reuse. With little by way of hangers-on that add nothing to the positive, proactive process of just getting doing their jobs.
What green terms do you think should be added to the dictionary?
I was going to say I don't really care so long as they get beyond terms pretty quick smart, and translate into action.
But as you've asked, I give you: enviROI.
It's the Return on Investment of any initiative or action to the planet's well-being. If CO2 (and a few other greenhouses gasses) is the accepted measure of what's doing us in, then all I ask for the sake of my kids' futures is that whatever it takes to get something out there it is mitigated and then exceeded by the net benefits of existing vs. getting made, operating and disposed of at the end.
It need not have a great financial ROI, though this must be viewed in comparison to other initiatives which could be funded that have better enviROIs.
Now, would any politician, activist, quango board member, head of industry, media commentator or other talking head with a career to forge, cause to promote, target to meet, subsidy to exploit or rating to drive up please explain to me in ways I can understand and act upon, which of what's on offer will deliver such a thing in a timeframe that won't talk us past the tipping point I hear so much about?
I'm gunning first simply for respites such as preventing deforestation internationally (rather than paying a bunch of sharp suits to plant lots more new ones as a salve, which means, as you infer, that SOD is OFF) and supporting any waste reduction systems such as insulation programmes nationally. Plus a few more I can think of that are here, now and do stuff that works with clear benefit to person and planet in the form of viable reduction and reuse. With little by way of hangers-on that add nothing to the positive, proactive process of just getting doing their jobs.
Feeling in safe hands?
In light of my previous post, to Newsnight, following their insights into the state of political response to climate change and the reaction of the electorate to it.
This has just popped in from the Green Party (well, a spokesperson, I guess): GREEN TORIES? NOT LIKELY!
Siân Berry takes on Zac Goldsmith:
http://www.newstatesman.com/200709200057
To see Zac Goldsmith's reply please go to:
http://www.newstatesman.com/200709190003
To see Siân's orginal post please go to:
http://www.newstatesman.com/200709170001
Q... blooming E... flipping D
This has just popped in from the Green Party (well, a spokesperson, I guess): GREEN TORIES? NOT LIKELY!
Siân Berry takes on Zac Goldsmith:
http://www.newstatesman.com/200709200057
To see Zac Goldsmith's reply please go to:
http://www.newstatesman.com/200709190003
To see Siân's orginal post please go to:
http://www.newstatesman.com/200709170001
Q... blooming E... flipping D
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Consequences
On another thread, in a blogosphere far, far away, I (well as part of a catch-all pejorative grouping) have been accused of trying to get someone fired.
Suffice to say that, by pitching in and asking some questions (as I tend to do when I get interested in the topic), the failure to answer these adequately has put a professional person/entity on the spot. And such is the unfairness of corporate life, there may be a consequence for those who least deserve it to save the skins who deserve it most.
And it's kinda interesting, as the very same outfit who seem to playing the 'poor person' card to deflect criticism (which really only works against them when it's still their scummy systems that make it work out that way) seem to think nothing of making dirty great big, and often woefully ill-informed, statements that can seriously impact the careers and lives of an awful lot of folk. Without so much as a moment's thought.
What inspired me to this train? This: No Job, No Carbon Footprint
Just check this bald statement: Forget environmental taxes - the coming recession will help sweep away a ton of unnecessary consumption quicker than you can say the words “mass redundancies” and “soaring repossessions.”
Note this also please, especially any who may recall what I have banged on about for, well ever: The only areas of the low carbon emissions market that resemble defensive plays are insulation and draught proofing. While these technologies have a payback period of under 4 years they make few appearances in the Power Point presentations Silicon Valley based alternative energy start ups make to the investment community.
What... saving the planet effectively isn't sexy enough????
Actually, this piece is all about the fallout to those who have decided to make a career in green.
I was thinking more about those in other industries; the kind my boys may want to join. Is wanting to be a pilot a smart call now? Or ski instructor? Just killing the air industry will trash, by some estimates, 10% of the the world's economies that depend on tourism. Where do 600million people go to get the alternative job?
No one said it would be a simple deal, I guess.
I'm just glad my little niche is working with the system to help save the planet and avoid waste... plus, with luck, making a decent career out of it.
So... does that mean I should stop asking questions?
No.. I thought not.
Suffice to say that, by pitching in and asking some questions (as I tend to do when I get interested in the topic), the failure to answer these adequately has put a professional person/entity on the spot. And such is the unfairness of corporate life, there may be a consequence for those who least deserve it to save the skins who deserve it most.
And it's kinda interesting, as the very same outfit who seem to playing the 'poor person' card to deflect criticism (which really only works against them when it's still their scummy systems that make it work out that way) seem to think nothing of making dirty great big, and often woefully ill-informed, statements that can seriously impact the careers and lives of an awful lot of folk. Without so much as a moment's thought.
What inspired me to this train? This: No Job, No Carbon Footprint
Just check this bald statement: Forget environmental taxes - the coming recession will help sweep away a ton of unnecessary consumption quicker than you can say the words “mass redundancies” and “soaring repossessions.”
Note this also please, especially any who may recall what I have banged on about for, well ever: The only areas of the low carbon emissions market that resemble defensive plays are insulation and draught proofing. While these technologies have a payback period of under 4 years they make few appearances in the Power Point presentations Silicon Valley based alternative energy start ups make to the investment community.
What... saving the planet effectively isn't sexy enough????
Actually, this piece is all about the fallout to those who have decided to make a career in green.
I was thinking more about those in other industries; the kind my boys may want to join. Is wanting to be a pilot a smart call now? Or ski instructor? Just killing the air industry will trash, by some estimates, 10% of the the world's economies that depend on tourism. Where do 600million people go to get the alternative job?
No one said it would be a simple deal, I guess.
I'm just glad my little niche is working with the system to help save the planet and avoid waste... plus, with luck, making a decent career out of it.
So... does that mean I should stop asking questions?
No.. I thought not.
BIG question
'Do politicians have the answers to climate change?'
Well, Newsnight did ask:
It's a bit like saying do they have the answers to 'the weather'. So in this more balance-aware age it probably should be more like 'Could politicians have the means to help mitigate mankind's possible/probable negative influences on climate change?', but I think we know what you mean.
And the answer is, of course.
The only small problems are the democratic electorates with near zero trust that most institutions who would claim to serve them - government, business, media, activist groups - will tell them what's going on without spin, career-advancement, profit or self-interest put first to cloud any rational efforts to address the issue.
Or, if that can be surmounted, have the skill sets in place to communicate anything to people in ways in which they can rationally engage in this day and age.
So... with Clintonesque troofamism, that's an 'affirmative, though enhanced by variable qualifiers to leave the answer to the question sufficiently obscure as to be anything and nothing all at once'....'cos staying in power is really all that matters.
I shall look forward to the results of the poll, but have long expressed concerns by the twofer style (even if it is this time 'focus groups') of getting to anything meaningful in debate.
I am sure for the benefits of ratings, the groups of sceptics and believers will have been selected in advance for the 'richness' of their views.
The trouble with such adherence to entrenched warfare entertainment is that the two extremes get so comfy where they are, surrounded by their mates firing rounds over the horizon and hoping for the odd hit, they forget what they are doing to everything that lies in between.
So usually the only winners in such events are the carrion crows who feed off the carnage they have orchestrated just for the meal of the day. For tomorrow is another headline.
Am I willing to pay more in green taxes? Yes, so long as they are clear, fair, spent where I can see the benefit (not endless quangos and unproductive administrators), have genuine enviROIs, are not just to meet some target, and will make the planet a better place overall for my kids by being imposed.
Will environmental policies influence the way I vote in a general election? Yes, but nothing the current shambolic collection of half-considered knee-jerks, crowd-pleasers and spinmeisters I've witnessed to date have managed to put forward anything to move me beyond 'none of the above' as yet. More's the pity.
Please let it be an interesting, worthwhile session, and not another producer's wet dream that leaves me disappointed again, and Mother Nature with a tear in her eye.
And if by some miracle it does arrive at some consensus and answers without collapsing into another 'tis/'t'isnt 'BigOil funded deniers' vs. 'Hairshirt and ignore the realities of 6B and growing populations', please to the heavens may they be in the form of tangible, worthwhile things that can be DONE, and not just yet more airwave fodder in the form of meaningless WORDS.
I guess I'm looking forward to it:)
ADDENDUM: I hope someone may one day hire me. I was pretty much bang on with all I said above, and have been banging on about for the last few years
[I sent that yesterday in response to the pre-show email. Didn't seem to make it for some reason]
I've now watched it. And I was wrong. At least about the extremes. This was a very polite, reasoned group. Good on 'em.
However...
I was a tad concerned about the research methodology on display. We had 30 'sceptics and deniers' moderated by a guy who says 'I'd rather die of heat than eat less meat'. Sets an objective tone? Not. As was, frankly, his leading the public hands up (which is why we have secret ballots) with incredulous commentary: 'Look... we ONLY have...'.
So I was expecting polarised views. Which is, to an extent, what we were served. But initially from only about half a dozen respondees, over and over. It expanded a bit more when things hit politics, but not by much.
And speaking of politics, why were we served visuals of, and choices between just Brown and Cameron? With, by way of bizarre 'balance', a sole Lib Dem spokesperson in the studio to respond afterwards?
The qualitative trends were interesting, but no more considering the nature of the group.
I was surprised at the high score for HRH, especially from the sceptics, because as examples go his record offers them some pretty good ammo, and certainly better than Mr. Huhne's odd proxy mea culpa for Al Gore.
Post Live Earth and pre Planet Relief (RIP), the BBC must be heaving a sigh... of relief how the cult of celebrity was viewed. (Please note all who just fancy setting up a party in the Green Room with your favourite soap star... er... in the name of awareness).
I was surprised at the consensus on the activist approach. Though it does at least show that guilt and hectoring are no more useful in the persuasion stakes across the board than fines or nanny state lectures.
I was also surprised to see Mr. Branson (if oddly deemed, at least to me, typically representative of the corporate sector) not better received. But then, opening with the notion that alternative fuels are going to solve everything (if showing how a selection of footage or edit can steer things) is not quite the 'reduction' response you'd expect a guy with travel as his business model to come up with. ADDENDUM - Just added a pic of a Virgin ad: fly to New York to shop. About covers it, I think.
And so the polster rounds up with 'Is climate in crisis... we're not sure.' That's quite a claim. based on 30 'we's'. I think most politicians are. I think such as the IPCC are. I think RealClimate is, etc (cue a raft of those who are not...).
So if as he says, 'we' are not, ... why not? And how do 'we' get motivated to act to help in mitigation?
As the topic of the piece it seems clear politicians don't have the answers, possibly, as JP said ' [They] just don't believe you'.
Which is, if others of us also don't, a bit of a problem.
Don't know about a dog's name, but it is its dinner.
Newsnight - Give a dog a bad name
Whatever it's called, please make sure it's kept virtual.
A pet purchase on the day you discuss the consequences of climate change measures may prove... interesting.
As long as it lasts:
VOTING ON CLIMATE CHANGE
Do voters really care about climate change? US pollster Frank Luntz organised a focus group to see
Watch the item
Guardian CiF - What will it take to convince people?
A variation on the above:
GiGo.
To ask if politicians have 'the answer' to climate change a bit like saying do they have the answers to 'the weather'. So in this more balance-aware age it probably should have been more like 'Could politicians have the means to help mitigate mankind's possible/probable negative influences on climate change?', but I think we know what was meant. For me it just became a bit less than effective as the various deaths by a thousand cuts took their toll on the process.
The simple answer is, of course they have.
The only small problems are the democratic electorates with near zero trust that most institutions who would claim to serve them - government, business, media, activist groups - will tell them what's going on without spin, career-advancement, profit or self-interest put first to cloud any rational efforts to address the issue.
Or, if that can be surmounted, have the skill sets in place to communicate anything to people in ways in which they can rationally engage in this day and age.
I looked forward to the results of the poll, but have long expressed concerns by the twofer style (even if it is this time 'focus groups') of getting to anything meaningful in debate.
I am sure for the benefits of ratings, the groups of sceptics and believers were selected in advance for the 'richness' of their views. Having watched it my fears about extremes were misplaced. This was a very polite, reasoned group. Good on 'em.
Because the trouble with the media's attraction to entrenched warfare entertainment is that the two extremes get so comfy where they are, surrounded by their mates firing rounds over the horizon and hoping for the odd hit, they forget what they are doing to everything that lies in between.
So usually the only winners in such events are the carrion crows who feed off the carnage they have orchestrated just for the meal of the day. For tomorrow is another headline.
The two main questions were: 'Am I willing to pay more in green taxes? My ans: - Yes, so long as they are clear, fair, spent where I can see the benefit (not endless quangos and unproductive administrators), have genuine enviROIs, are not just to meet some target, and will make the planet a better place overall for my kids by being imposed.
Then: 'Will environmental policies influence the way I vote in a general election?" Ans: Yes, but nothing the current shambolic collection of half-considered knee-jerks, crowd-pleasers and spinmeisters I've witnessed to date have managed to put forward anything to move me beyond 'none of the above' as yet. More's the pity.
However, I was a tad concerned about the research methodology on display. We had 30 'sceptics and deniers' moderated by a guy who says 'I'd rather die of heat than eat less meat'. Sets an objective tone? Not. As was, frankly, his leading the public hands up (which is why we have secret ballots) with, as you noted, incredulous commentary: 'Look... we ONLY have...'.
So I was expecting polarised views. Which is, to an extent, what we were served. But initially from only about half a dozen respondees, over and over. It expanded a bit more when things hit politics, but not by much.
And speaking of politics, why were we served visuals of, and choices between just Brown (looking forward to his big climate ideas at the conference) and Cameron? With, by way of bizarre 'balance', a sole Lib Dem spokesperson in the studio to respond afterwards?
The qualitative trends were interesting, but no more considering the nature of the group.
I was surprised at the high score for HRH, especially from the sceptics, because as examples go his record offers them some pretty good ammo, and certainly better than Mr. Huhne's odd proxy mea culpa for Al Gore.
Post Live Earth and pre Planet Relief (RIP), the BBC must be heaving a sigh... of relief how the cult of celebrity was viewed. (Please note all who just fancy setting up a party in the Green Room with your favourite soap star... er... in the name of awareness).
I was surprised at the consensus on the activist approach. Though it does at least show that guilt and hectoring are no more useful in the persuasion stakes across the board than fines or nanny state lectures.
I was also surprised to see Mr. Branson (if oddly deemed, at least to me, typically representative of the corporate sector) not better received. But then, opening with the notion that alternative fuels are going to solve everything is not quite the 'reduction' response you'd expect a guy with travel as his Galactic business model to come up with.
And so the polster rounds up with 'Is climate in crisis... we're not sure.' That's quite a claim. based on 30 'we's'. I think most politicians are. I think such as the IPCC are. I think RealClimate is, etc (cue a raft of those who are not...).
So if as he says, 'we' are not, ... why not? And how do 'we' get motivated to act to help in mitigation?
As the topic of the piece it seemed clear politicians don't have the answers, possibly, as Jeremy Paxman said to one:' [They] just don't believe you'.
Personally, I think we need to look at the current crop of messengers because, for all their efforts (and money spent), not many seem to be getting the message.
Guardian - Can politicians solve climate change?
In the spirit of recycling, I'd answer the question as I did when it was posed on Newsnight and referred to on these very pages:
To offer a short answer from this it is, of course.
The only small problems are the democratic electorates with near zero trust that most institutions who would claim to serve them - government, business, media, activist groups - will tell them what's going on without spin, career-advancement, profit or self-interest put first to cloud any rational efforts to address the issue.
And having popped back to look at my blog I find it rather telling irony (and annoying) that Google have plonked an ad on my post... from a Washington Lobbying Firm.
Wind power growing fast
An interesting report on Europe's wind power industry from Business Week.
It seems that the booming wind power industry has already inspired a series of takeovers and acquisitions, as global businesses rush to be able to state that they have renewables as a substantial part of their portfolio.
And of course, there are some interesting financial incentives too .....
"While investment in wind farms helps cut the carbon footprint of European energy companies, there are also significant financial incentives for going green. Under EU and domestic rules, utilities can charge higher rates for renewable electricity, either through government-mandated prices for end customers or so-called renewables obligations, which reward companies for building carbon-friendly power plants."
Let's just hope that the big boys involved don't take their eyes off the enviROI of each new project, and ensure that it is a) in the right location b) actually worth doing and c) not simply a cash making exercise.
It seems that the booming wind power industry has already inspired a series of takeovers and acquisitions, as global businesses rush to be able to state that they have renewables as a substantial part of their portfolio.
And of course, there are some interesting financial incentives too .....
"While investment in wind farms helps cut the carbon footprint of European energy companies, there are also significant financial incentives for going green. Under EU and domestic rules, utilities can charge higher rates for renewable electricity, either through government-mandated prices for end customers or so-called renewables obligations, which reward companies for building carbon-friendly power plants."
Let's just hope that the big boys involved don't take their eyes off the enviROI of each new project, and ensure that it is a) in the right location b) actually worth doing and c) not simply a cash making exercise.
Two for one deal
I'm quite happy to recommend RealClimate as a pretty good place to go if you want some info on the science behind the variosu excitements that hit the headlines. Now they have offered up another source in Nature.
I quite like their style.
I quite like their style.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)