The e-blogosphere, from Newsnight to BBC is Biased, is humming a tad on this: Inconvenient verdict delivered on Gore's climate change film
As stated before, I can't for the life of me figure how it has come to this. The thing is pretty much ancient history anyway, and AG has a new version (with solutions) coming, and there are two others I am aware of (Leonardo di Caprio's and another whose name escapes me) which are also more proactive available.
Bearing in mind this is the Indy I find this rather telling: 'But, in a somewhat more damaging move, the judge forensically examined the documentary's "one-sided" case and found "nine scientific errors" in its content.'
But this is where I get annoyed, not with the 'deniers', but those who keep handing them easy ways to cast doubts: 'Yesterday's ruling will no doubt be greeted with glee among climate-change deniers.' I am seeing it in every post out there. And the other stuff, the actual worrying stuff, gets ignored in the noise.
And in the spirit of 'two wrongs..', I could give a stuff that '...green opponents [how is it so clear cut as all pro vs all no/] have come under similar criticisms over their own claims on the hotly contested issue. '
I just want to know what we know, and no more and no less, and be guided as best I can to do what is best for my kids' futures. The only winners here are those who thrive under a cloud of controversy. And there are a lot of them on both 'sides'.
BBC - Gore climate film's 'nine errors'
'... this controversy could encourage the public to think there was scientific doubt about the facts of climate change.' Ya think?
Guardian - Gore's climate film has scientific errors - judge
Newsnight - Wednesday, 10 October, 2007
Having now watched this, I wish politicians of all hues (and a few media types, though JP was a noble exception in referring to 'us', I believe, as 'they', which I presume to be a separate breed of human to those who haunt studios) would resist from telling me what I think when I haven't been asked. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, has the rest of the country in any meaningful way.
It makes it very hard to stay objective on what IS happening and gets DONE, and resist reacting and seeking the exact opposite just as payback for the presumption.
Which brings me to the world being consumed in a ball of fire by next Tuesday. Or... not.
The eco-blogosphere is humming a bit on this.
And I really can't for the life of me figure how it has come to this. The piece (as noted) is pretty much ancient history anyway, and AG has a new version (with solutions) coming, and there are two others I am aware of (Leonardo diCaprio's and another whose name escapes me) which are also more proactive available. So what the government was/is doing punting it out anyway escapes me.
Where I do get annoyed in this is with those who keep handing climate optimists easy ways to cast doubts. I am seeing it in every post out there. While the other stuff, the actual for real worrying stuff, gets ignored in the noise.
And in the spirit of 'two wrongs..', I could give a stuff that '...green opponents [how is it so clear cut as all pro vs all no?] have come under similar criticisms over their own claims on the hotly contested issue', as I read by way of a comeback in the paper. It's always extremes.
So we get a guy up against JP, whose job it is to seek weaknesses in argument and tear them apart, and I am left with ' 'bits' of it were... um... wrong, but not wrong'? Do what? On this basis what else could get the green ('scuse pun) light to be aired at school, so long as it comes with a teacher's disclaimer training manual. I know how that is going to go down having run it by my own kids; 'Er, dad, what are you on about???'. I want them educated in more than box-ticking.
And, as an aside, I was not aware that 'we' 'know' that climate change IS man-made. I am passionately committed to practical (a lot in that), effective (even more there) reduction and/or mitigation on an urgent basis, but just on a slightly different one that I, personally, 'believe', which is 'man' and our activities sure may not be helping much.
And if the MMCC absolute does get disproved (which in some other ways I pray it does, though my business plan might need changing a tad once the party starts) or even just further chipped away, it sets back the entreaties of the less dogmatic advocates. Cry wolf, anyone?
Like greenwashing ads, why push the claim to the point that it is shown to be hyped, or worse false, and undo all the other good the brand has been building? I know it can seem so urgent to some (me inc.) that any means necessary can be tempting to take to get the message out, but not if this is the result.
I can only speak personally to say I just want to know what 'we' know now - no more and no less, with all caveats - and to be guided as best I can be to do what is best for my kids' futures.
The only winners here are those who thrive under a cloud of controversy. And there are a lot of them on both 'sides' feeding off this as we speak.
Green cannot be viewed just in black and white.
ADDENDUM
* 33.* Baz wrote:
Thank you for this. As one interested but who cannot face the prospect of wading through mammoth reports I can't complain so much if I rely on those who do if the information I get is 'selective'.
I have been convinced enough by what I have been served up to concede that there is the distinct possibility of Man-worsened Climate Change, and even if this ends up being proven in error there seems no great harm in a cautious approach to our race's activities from now on. In any case, moderation, cutting down/out pollution and prevention of waste are no bad things to practice simply in financial terms.
Semantically, do I read this as saying it's a given that climate change in human-induced? You obviously did. I could see it more as looking at 'whether', which seems valid.
That said, I have heard the BBC's main enviro spokespersons/experts (whose qualifications are?) refer to the 'fact' that climate change is caused by man. Is it?
Because then there is also such as this: "the risk is the public might misunderstand what campaigners are saying with what the scientists are actually finding out."
Quite.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
I saw three ships a belchin' forth...
Anything that starts with 'New research suggests..' gets my eyebrow well primed, but I do wonder if this is another biggie we are ignoring in favour of trivia: Shipping pollution 'far more damaging than flying'
BBC - Ships' CO2 'twice that of planes'
BBC - Ships' CO2 'twice that of planes'
Why 'greens' don't want to solve climate change
An interesting and well structured piece from Spiked which argues that environmentalists are against major technological solutions to climate change as it robs them of their raison d'etre.
Well worth a read.
Well worth a read.
Don't call us. And we won't call you.
Inspiring stuff: EVEN GORDON GETS CONFUSED ABOUT TPS!
I am intrigued by big businesses who are on/hide behind TPS.
It rather begs the question as to how they find out anything new.
Having been challenged by a mentor to call (I really, really... don't like cold calling) a major fmcg Marketing Director up to get a chance to pitch my green eco-packaging invention, my first attempt was Trace on reception 'Hoodisayscallin'?" and through to Mrs. Miggins on her IBM Selectric: 'Does he KNOW you?'. To my answer that no, he did not, but I was pretty sure he and his company would like to be aware of a green innovation that made money and saved the planet, she shrieked 'But we're on TPS - I am reporting you!' I quake as I write.
And that was just me going via their website.
Ahhh... doing business in Brown's not very green and very unpleasant land.
I am intrigued by big businesses who are on/hide behind TPS.
It rather begs the question as to how they find out anything new.
Having been challenged by a mentor to call (I really, really... don't like cold calling) a major fmcg Marketing Director up to get a chance to pitch my green eco-packaging invention, my first attempt was Trace on reception 'Hoodisayscallin'?" and through to Mrs. Miggins on her IBM Selectric: 'Does he KNOW you?'. To my answer that no, he did not, but I was pretty sure he and his company would like to be aware of a green innovation that made money and saved the planet, she shrieked 'But we're on TPS - I am reporting you!' I quake as I write.
And that was just me going via their website.
Ahhh... doing business in Brown's not very green and very unpleasant land.
Worked for me
EXCEEDING EXPECTATIONS IS THE WRONG STRATEGY
I ran my agency on one simple service principle: promise slightly lower than you know you can deliver... and then, when you do, exceed it by as much as you can.
Never failed.
I ran my agency on one simple service principle: promise slightly lower than you know you can deliver... and then, when you do, exceed it by as much as you can.
Never failed.
But will he get it?
Greenpeace sends message to "Gordon"
Not always a fan of Greenpeace, but sometimes they can do more than most to get our 'we're listening', if rather deaf, leadership to at least confront some stuff they seem to wish didn't exist.
Management Today - Labour’s entrepreneur tax - I know, it's not the same thing. I just needed a palce to stick it before I jumped off the roof.
Indy - Green Taxes: Chancellor accused of stealing Tory idea
Not always a fan of Greenpeace, but sometimes they can do more than most to get our 'we're listening', if rather deaf, leadership to at least confront some stuff they seem to wish didn't exist.
Management Today - Labour’s entrepreneur tax - I know, it's not the same thing. I just needed a palce to stick it before I jumped off the roof.
Indy - Green Taxes: Chancellor accused of stealing Tory idea
Dim thinking on a bright problem
And it's positive!
I'm not in the habit of giving too much ad space for free to just one outfit, but as this is an issue of topicality I thought this warranted inclusion now - Energy saving dimmable light bulbs!
The lack of a dimming facility has been a (slightly trivial, in my view) reason for resistance from both architects and the public in this debate.
I hope this may serve to solve that aspect.
Others remain. There is the subjective area of light cast, which can put off some purists, and my own, which is on reliability (posted before).
ADDENDUM 17/10 - for comparison (on price), I have just been advised of this from Light Bulbs Direct.
I'm not in the habit of giving too much ad space for free to just one outfit, but as this is an issue of topicality I thought this warranted inclusion now - Energy saving dimmable light bulbs!
The lack of a dimming facility has been a (slightly trivial, in my view) reason for resistance from both architects and the public in this debate.
I hope this may serve to solve that aspect.
Others remain. There is the subjective area of light cast, which can put off some purists, and my own, which is on reliability (posted before).
ADDENDUM 17/10 - for comparison (on price), I have just been advised of this from Light Bulbs Direct.
BLOG ACTION DAY
This has been under my nose each time I log on to the blog admin for how long and only now do I notice it!
Bit of a no brainer, really. That's me... and taking part.
Note: I was totally thrown by the need for an RSS number. I have no clue. I need to find out, and if can help I'd be very grateful. If it is connected to the Junkk.com site I could say 120-150,000 unique visitors/month, which would impress!
Apparently, it will work if I just stick a number in. I hate to say 0 as it isn't, but to move on I guess I'll be honest and say I don't know so... zero:(
ADDENDUM - Logo up now. Don't know what went wrong with my upload
What you see...what you get?
It's not that eco, sorry, but my blood was boiling already on the disconnect on what happens and how it gets reported: Newsnight - PRE-BUDGET REPORT
7.At 10:49 PM on 09 Oct 2007,
sue smith wrote:
Stephanie Flanders is wrong, wrong, wrong!
Was/is she? When am I going to get objective information and analysis without layers of agenda overlaid that I need to labour (no relation) over and cross-index to get anywhere near what is going on.
This morning on Breakfast I leaned that 'we' the people, thought that Mr. Darling had cunningly pulled a fast one. I don't recall being asked, nor do I remember a valid poll to substantiate such a statement from what one would hope to be objective journalism.
So it is here on the blog posts (missed the show, sadly) that I actually get close to some analysis that guides me to an informed view on yesterday's efforts by Mr. Darling.
In the 'fight back', I have noticed the well-trained..er.. briefed cabinet clones and supporting sympathetic/sycophantic media are spinning this as applicable to a very small number of folk and dependents who don't deserve 'it'. Such as Polly Toynbee on the Andrew Marr show, invited, one presumes, to show balance.
I'll have to leave the reality of that to the lies, damn lies and political number crunchers to fight over.
All I know is that when my Mum hit 75 she could no longer look after herself. So we sold her big house and popped her in a small one next to ours so I could keep an eye on her.
Thing is, at 50, and having worked from home for a decade, with my old CV, any attempt to hit the workforce as a consequence of various downturns, combined with the farce that is the equal opportunity legislation on any practical application (ask anyone over 40 - who admits to it - how a CV gets treated), means I am looking at a very long creek ahead and a very short paddle.
What's left of Mum's legacy would go a long way to mitigating that and help me feel a bit better about where my future will be placed without being a burden on the kids or society either.
So to all those well paid and golden pensioned Ministers and media luvvies who can't see how this might play well with those who do work hard and try and keep things in the family, I have a very short phrase for you: at least I still have my vote.
And for a presenter to say no one will remember who did what at the booth when the time comes, I speak solely for myself in saying 'Oh yes I will.'
7.At 10:49 PM on 09 Oct 2007,
sue smith wrote:
Stephanie Flanders is wrong, wrong, wrong!
Was/is she? When am I going to get objective information and analysis without layers of agenda overlaid that I need to labour (no relation) over and cross-index to get anywhere near what is going on.
This morning on Breakfast I leaned that 'we' the people, thought that Mr. Darling had cunningly pulled a fast one. I don't recall being asked, nor do I remember a valid poll to substantiate such a statement from what one would hope to be objective journalism.
So it is here on the blog posts (missed the show, sadly) that I actually get close to some analysis that guides me to an informed view on yesterday's efforts by Mr. Darling.
In the 'fight back', I have noticed the well-trained..er.. briefed cabinet clones and supporting sympathetic/sycophantic media are spinning this as applicable to a very small number of folk and dependents who don't deserve 'it'. Such as Polly Toynbee on the Andrew Marr show, invited, one presumes, to show balance.
I'll have to leave the reality of that to the lies, damn lies and political number crunchers to fight over.
All I know is that when my Mum hit 75 she could no longer look after herself. So we sold her big house and popped her in a small one next to ours so I could keep an eye on her.
Thing is, at 50, and having worked from home for a decade, with my old CV, any attempt to hit the workforce as a consequence of various downturns, combined with the farce that is the equal opportunity legislation on any practical application (ask anyone over 40 - who admits to it - how a CV gets treated), means I am looking at a very long creek ahead and a very short paddle.
What's left of Mum's legacy would go a long way to mitigating that and help me feel a bit better about where my future will be placed without being a burden on the kids or society either.
So to all those well paid and golden pensioned Ministers and media luvvies who can't see how this might play well with those who do work hard and try and keep things in the family, I have a very short phrase for you: at least I still have my vote.
And for a presenter to say no one will remember who did what at the booth when the time comes, I speak solely for myself in saying 'Oh yes I will.'
I defend the BBC...ish
I had to weigh in on a discussion prompted by the reporting of the opening up of the Northwest Passage for [insert time period here according to relative MMGW persuasion]
'.. if we're likely to see Dr. David G. on the news explaining the lack of evidence for man-made global warming'
Not quite fair. If the combined might of everyone from the IPCC to RealClimate can't 'prove' anything one way or another to the satisfaction of all then I doubt he could... or should be asked to. Though the BBC’s role in sharing pertinent, objective information is of course both topical and of interest.
As previously head-above-parapetted, personally I think there is climate change; it is negative; it is getting worse and it is worth looking at ways to mitigate man's possible influences. And pronto. But I do have some strong views on how, and how the current cabal of government, media, interest groups and activists are clouding an already murky issue to the extent that the general public are kicking back.
So I do think flying a reporter up to an iceberg to do a noddy in front of a snowman sends out a mixed message at best. And every time I see a twee reporter skipping around a G-Wiz saying it doesn't pollute it makes me wince.
The message is too important to be compromised by sloppy reporting or pandering to targets or box ticking agendas. And I especially feel every overkill story sets the cause of rational argument back by giving those who are more vocal in their ‘optimism’ (I find denier to be a pejorative) a chance to attack detail at the expense of the bigger picture.
Speaking of which...
I was wondering if any from the BBC, and perhaps the Department of Denial that is JR (though I'd prefer a more qualified and less selective responder) has any thoughts on the BBC erring on the side of the 'green trap' policy wisdom by the government in terms of political discussion (the Conservatives and Lib Dems and Greens all being a tad more considered, if often confused, in at least discussing options, and often unpopular ones) whilst bombarding us with ‘we're all doomed scenarios on ice’ that may just be coincidental in the great climatic scheme of things. Or getting a set of Islington knickers in a twist on issues which, while certainly part of the overall scheme of things, are less of a priority or concern right now than, say, home insulation or deforestation.
I was amongst a covey of 'mentalists (I am one!) last night who had ventured out from the big city in their Priuses (nothing like lugging a battery down the M4 to make you feel good about the planet) . But perhaps Tewksbury was the wrong place to suggest that 4x4s and bottled water were not necessary, especially when we find out just how well our political masters have, are and might be thinking of handling the consequences of avoiding the green trap with their flood plans.
ADDENDUM - I GOT MODERATED!!!!
For this:
I do not want or intend to get into a 'tis/t'isn't MMGW argument (they go nowhere and simply consume precious energy pointlessly), but simply share this 'for the pot':
Sustainability: A Nobel Cause
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=481
Ignoring all the warmly-debated science, I merely note who is chatting, and the key fact that they do not seem to be obsessing too much on matters of idealism, rather cold hard cash.
I have great respect for RealClimate (though the posters are getting a little more feisty of late - I like my science objective), and hence the comments in reply to the original post make for equally interesting reading by way of balance.
And noting the mere hint that a pol is doing stuff not for the mid/far future but to prop up economics now really does damage.
[Peter, I'm afraid you can't say "I don't want to get into an argument about this", and then present a provocative article! The Moderator.]
Peter | Homepage | 10.10.07 - 10:59 am | #
I'm afraid I felt to delete my post (and leave in what they did) like this was unwarranted:
OK, stick the RealClimate article I featured back up without that opener (I guess you'll have to delete that - but will it remain in Googlecache?), along with the rest of my thoughts on how it and the post in reply highlighted some interesting politico/media MMGW issues and how people can respond to them.
I'll then let the various extremes fight over whether 'it' exists at all whilst missing the actual point.
I will then engage or not if I so wish. Happy?
As it stands, and perhaps despite my poor wording, I'd say the chop you have instigated serves the cause of moderation poorly. I'd have thought leaving the totality up and saying what you think about it to be more appropriate. I don't think anything I wrote contravened any of the site rules. I just shared some info pertinent to the thread and in advance advised I was not terribly keen on arguing about something no one knows about for sure one way or another yet.
Currently no one has a clue what you/we are on about.
That serves who well, exactly?
Their site. Their ball. Their loss.
ADDENDUM:
It went up. And then it got deleted. An interesting insight into the actions of those who talk of bias.
ADDENDUM 2:
Another day, and the possibility of another moderator. So I popped this in.
Removing the option of the public to comment! Now who'd do a thing like that?
bob | 11.10.07 - 8:04 am | #
Can't imagine. But, as oft noted, it is free and the owner's ball to play with. See how long this stays up.
ps: I put in a link to RealClimate to make a point on the MMGW 'debate' being about 'tis/t'isn't happening (at all) vs. looking ahead at reasonable solutions. Shame no one got a chance to see, much less comment on it and my sloppy first line was used as an excuse to whip out the entire (pretty innocuous) rest of the post.
Peter | Homepage | 11.10.07 - 9:55 am | #
I might be heading for my first ban, which will be a milestone! Shame, as I do value some of what gets discovered, shared and discussed, but not when the discussions get steered in the same way as the entity they purport to accuse of dodgy practices.
ADDENDUM 3:
A challenge:
Peter:
[The Moderator: Peter, if you want to discuss our moderation policy, e-mail us on biasedbbc@googlemail.com (but in short, off-topic comments are likely to be deleted).]
Peter | Homepage | 11.10.07 - 9:55 am | #
Thank you for the opportunity for discussion.
I think BBBC has some fine minds at work, and I value the information I glean. As well as the debate.
Sadly, I rather felt the moderation in the case that prompted my subsequent comment to have been an example more of what the BBC is often accused of, with reason, and seriously affected my view of the site as a consequence.
The piece in question was on a thread concerning climate change, which has been very much in the news and indeed on the BBBC site on numerous occasions, but really quite frequently of late, as associated with Mr. Gore's movie and Nobel.
My point in the 'moderated' piece has been quite eloquently made by subsequent events, namely that anything regarding sensible debate on anything climatic gets immediately co-opted into two extreme camps: the so-called 'deniers' and the 'green at all costers', with suitable descriptive ing/ist/zi perjoratives added to taste, and a lot of playing the man and not the ball.
I'd guess that most on BBBC fall into the former. OK, it's a private blog. Most in the BBC fall into the latter. No so fair enough, as they are my public broadcaster. I get very unhappy when I read about such as Roger Harrabin's qualifications and editorial memos or Mr. Gore's various less than noble activities. Not because I don't think there is a climate issue, or indeed that man might well be rather unhelpful, but because I don't think the negative exposure these inaccuracies and exaggeration and secret agendas in the cause of 'doing what's best' for 'the people' are working or help. Especially when they boomerang.
So I am dedicated to information, and as well shaped opinion as I can get it. Which is why I watch BBC and read BBBC. The truth is often in the middle.
And hence I like to share as well, to see what might come back.
All I said is that I didn't want to get into a pointless MMGW argument. For a start, to my best assessment, even though that acronym is used by rather extreme 'denier' posters, the fact of man's causing it is nowhere to be found. I allow for possibly 'man worsened' at best.
And my post discussed that, cited highly valid sources such as Real Climate, but also quoting Chancellor Merkel to show how where you start from in this issue always pretty much predicts where the argument will end up.
Yet all this was deleted. What was left was the first line, alluding to 'a provocative article'. On the basis of my saying I didn't want the argument hijacked in the usual direction it always does.
How that is off topic fails me. But if as I presume you refer to my dropping a point about editing to support a view in a thread about the BBC doing just that, I'd say a little self-analysis may be in order.
Here's the sequence as you may have deleted it all and Google cache may not be available: (see above).
Keep up the good work. Try and stop the less so.
Didn't take long. I got a reply.
We delete a *lot* of comments every day. I don't know why you have
presumed it's just yours that has been deleted (or why you have
presumed that we only delete comments that we don't agree with).
Perhaps it's because we usually just delete a post without comment,
which we didn't do in your case (because of your newbie status). Or
perhaps it's because you're very much a "me" blogger.
We get far more comments on global warming than we want, and we
delete a lot of them. They are by far the most numerous category of
comments that we delete. About 90% of those that we delete are
arguing *against* the existence and/or severity of GW. (Similarly,
about 90% of the comments we delete are taking an anti-BBC line). It
is simply not justified for you to assume that you were deleted
because you didn't "toe a party line".
We do leave some comments on GW in, but only the better, more
relevant and more concise ones. You gave us a good excuse to delete
yours because you said you were "adding one for the pot", which
created the impression that you were leaving us something that would
create a blizzard of comments which you could step away from. In
addition, we had noticed that you had a tendency for long, rambling
off-topic comments, and we're not very interested in that.
If you want to discuss GW in-depth online, then I suggest you go to a
dedicated site.
I'll leave it all in, critique and all. You know what? They're right. Sometimes I do post over-long screeds. I may even ramble, though I'd like to think that without the benefit of time it is just exploring all the options. We live in a sound bite culture that suffers from the whole issue not being considered properly.
As to the rest, I'd say quite breathtaking, defevensive, illogical arrogance. Not a little less than pleasant, too, as I was invited to get in touch. And as they have admitted to an approach of censoring what they feel like, I can't see they are any different to the BBC TV/online efforts they critique for being 'selective', or what they call biased.
I'll still use 'em to find stuff. But as for their status as an online place of even debate, for me at least, their reputation is shot. I have learned a lot about moderation from this, and I hope it will make my blog the better for it.
Plus my RSI might improve.
'.. if we're likely to see Dr. David G. on the news explaining the lack of evidence for man-made global warming'
Not quite fair. If the combined might of everyone from the IPCC to RealClimate can't 'prove' anything one way or another to the satisfaction of all then I doubt he could... or should be asked to. Though the BBC’s role in sharing pertinent, objective information is of course both topical and of interest.
As previously head-above-parapetted, personally I think there is climate change; it is negative; it is getting worse and it is worth looking at ways to mitigate man's possible influences. And pronto. But I do have some strong views on how, and how the current cabal of government, media, interest groups and activists are clouding an already murky issue to the extent that the general public are kicking back.
So I do think flying a reporter up to an iceberg to do a noddy in front of a snowman sends out a mixed message at best. And every time I see a twee reporter skipping around a G-Wiz saying it doesn't pollute it makes me wince.
The message is too important to be compromised by sloppy reporting or pandering to targets or box ticking agendas. And I especially feel every overkill story sets the cause of rational argument back by giving those who are more vocal in their ‘optimism’ (I find denier to be a pejorative) a chance to attack detail at the expense of the bigger picture.
Speaking of which...
I was wondering if any from the BBC, and perhaps the Department of Denial that is JR (though I'd prefer a more qualified and less selective responder) has any thoughts on the BBC erring on the side of the 'green trap' policy wisdom by the government in terms of political discussion (the Conservatives and Lib Dems and Greens all being a tad more considered, if often confused, in at least discussing options, and often unpopular ones) whilst bombarding us with ‘we're all doomed scenarios on ice’ that may just be coincidental in the great climatic scheme of things. Or getting a set of Islington knickers in a twist on issues which, while certainly part of the overall scheme of things, are less of a priority or concern right now than, say, home insulation or deforestation.
I was amongst a covey of 'mentalists (I am one!) last night who had ventured out from the big city in their Priuses (nothing like lugging a battery down the M4 to make you feel good about the planet) . But perhaps Tewksbury was the wrong place to suggest that 4x4s and bottled water were not necessary, especially when we find out just how well our political masters have, are and might be thinking of handling the consequences of avoiding the green trap with their flood plans.
ADDENDUM - I GOT MODERATED!!!!
For this:
I do not want or intend to get into a 'tis/t'isn't MMGW argument (they go nowhere and simply consume precious energy pointlessly), but simply share this 'for the pot':
Sustainability: A Nobel Cause
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=481
Ignoring all the warmly-debated science, I merely note who is chatting, and the key fact that they do not seem to be obsessing too much on matters of idealism, rather cold hard cash.
I have great respect for RealClimate (though the posters are getting a little more feisty of late - I like my science objective), and hence the comments in reply to the original post make for equally interesting reading by way of balance.
And noting the mere hint that a pol is doing stuff not for the mid/far future but to prop up economics now really does damage.
[Peter, I'm afraid you can't say "I don't want to get into an argument about this", and then present a provocative article! The Moderator.]
Peter | Homepage | 10.10.07 - 10:59 am | #
I'm afraid I felt to delete my post (and leave in what they did) like this was unwarranted:
OK, stick the RealClimate article I featured back up without that opener (I guess you'll have to delete that - but will it remain in Googlecache?), along with the rest of my thoughts on how it and the post in reply highlighted some interesting politico/media MMGW issues and how people can respond to them.
I'll then let the various extremes fight over whether 'it' exists at all whilst missing the actual point.
I will then engage or not if I so wish. Happy?
As it stands, and perhaps despite my poor wording, I'd say the chop you have instigated serves the cause of moderation poorly. I'd have thought leaving the totality up and saying what you think about it to be more appropriate. I don't think anything I wrote contravened any of the site rules. I just shared some info pertinent to the thread and in advance advised I was not terribly keen on arguing about something no one knows about for sure one way or another yet.
Currently no one has a clue what you/we are on about.
That serves who well, exactly?
Their site. Their ball. Their loss.
ADDENDUM:
It went up. And then it got deleted. An interesting insight into the actions of those who talk of bias.
ADDENDUM 2:
Another day, and the possibility of another moderator. So I popped this in.
Removing the option of the public to comment! Now who'd do a thing like that?
bob | 11.10.07 - 8:04 am | #
Can't imagine. But, as oft noted, it is free and the owner's ball to play with. See how long this stays up.
ps: I put in a link to RealClimate to make a point on the MMGW 'debate' being about 'tis/t'isn't happening (at all) vs. looking ahead at reasonable solutions. Shame no one got a chance to see, much less comment on it and my sloppy first line was used as an excuse to whip out the entire (pretty innocuous) rest of the post.
Peter | Homepage | 11.10.07 - 9:55 am | #
I might be heading for my first ban, which will be a milestone! Shame, as I do value some of what gets discovered, shared and discussed, but not when the discussions get steered in the same way as the entity they purport to accuse of dodgy practices.
ADDENDUM 3:
A challenge:
Peter:
[The Moderator: Peter, if you want to discuss our moderation policy, e-mail us on biasedbbc@googlemail.com (but in short, off-topic comments are likely to be deleted).]
Peter | Homepage | 11.10.07 - 9:55 am | #
Thank you for the opportunity for discussion.
I think BBBC has some fine minds at work, and I value the information I glean. As well as the debate.
Sadly, I rather felt the moderation in the case that prompted my subsequent comment to have been an example more of what the BBC is often accused of, with reason, and seriously affected my view of the site as a consequence.
The piece in question was on a thread concerning climate change, which has been very much in the news and indeed on the BBBC site on numerous occasions, but really quite frequently of late, as associated with Mr. Gore's movie and Nobel.
My point in the 'moderated' piece has been quite eloquently made by subsequent events, namely that anything regarding sensible debate on anything climatic gets immediately co-opted into two extreme camps: the so-called 'deniers' and the 'green at all costers', with suitable descriptive ing/ist/zi perjoratives added to taste, and a lot of playing the man and not the ball.
I'd guess that most on BBBC fall into the former. OK, it's a private blog. Most in the BBC fall into the latter. No so fair enough, as they are my public broadcaster. I get very unhappy when I read about such as Roger Harrabin's qualifications and editorial memos or Mr. Gore's various less than noble activities. Not because I don't think there is a climate issue, or indeed that man might well be rather unhelpful, but because I don't think the negative exposure these inaccuracies and exaggeration and secret agendas in the cause of 'doing what's best' for 'the people' are working or help. Especially when they boomerang.
So I am dedicated to information, and as well shaped opinion as I can get it. Which is why I watch BBC and read BBBC. The truth is often in the middle.
And hence I like to share as well, to see what might come back.
All I said is that I didn't want to get into a pointless MMGW argument. For a start, to my best assessment, even though that acronym is used by rather extreme 'denier' posters, the fact of man's causing it is nowhere to be found. I allow for possibly 'man worsened' at best.
And my post discussed that, cited highly valid sources such as Real Climate, but also quoting Chancellor Merkel to show how where you start from in this issue always pretty much predicts where the argument will end up.
Yet all this was deleted. What was left was the first line, alluding to 'a provocative article'. On the basis of my saying I didn't want the argument hijacked in the usual direction it always does.
How that is off topic fails me. But if as I presume you refer to my dropping a point about editing to support a view in a thread about the BBC doing just that, I'd say a little self-analysis may be in order.
Here's the sequence as you may have deleted it all and Google cache may not be available: (see above).
Keep up the good work. Try and stop the less so.
Didn't take long. I got a reply.
We delete a *lot* of comments every day. I don't know why you have
presumed it's just yours that has been deleted (or why you have
presumed that we only delete comments that we don't agree with).
Perhaps it's because we usually just delete a post without comment,
which we didn't do in your case (because of your newbie status). Or
perhaps it's because you're very much a "me" blogger.
We get far more comments on global warming than we want, and we
delete a lot of them. They are by far the most numerous category of
comments that we delete. About 90% of those that we delete are
arguing *against* the existence and/or severity of GW. (Similarly,
about 90% of the comments we delete are taking an anti-BBC line). It
is simply not justified for you to assume that you were deleted
because you didn't "toe a party line".
We do leave some comments on GW in, but only the better, more
relevant and more concise ones. You gave us a good excuse to delete
yours because you said you were "adding one for the pot", which
created the impression that you were leaving us something that would
create a blizzard of comments which you could step away from. In
addition, we had noticed that you had a tendency for long, rambling
off-topic comments, and we're not very interested in that.
If you want to discuss GW in-depth online, then I suggest you go to a
dedicated site.
I'll leave it all in, critique and all. You know what? They're right. Sometimes I do post over-long screeds. I may even ramble, though I'd like to think that without the benefit of time it is just exploring all the options. We live in a sound bite culture that suffers from the whole issue not being considered properly.
As to the rest, I'd say quite breathtaking, defevensive, illogical arrogance. Not a little less than pleasant, too, as I was invited to get in touch. And as they have admitted to an approach of censoring what they feel like, I can't see they are any different to the BBC TV/online efforts they critique for being 'selective', or what they call biased.
I'll still use 'em to find stuff. But as for their status as an online place of even debate, for me at least, their reputation is shot. I have learned a lot about moderation from this, and I hope it will make my blog the better for it.
Plus my RSI might improve.
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
We live in a world of crazy decisions
This article from Effect Measure (who I have to confess I hadn't come across until today), highlights how governmental agencies still take crazy decisions.
It relates to the interim approval by the EPA for the use of Methyl Iodide as a fumigant to replace highly toxic Methyl Bromide; approval for which has been withdrawn under the Montreal protocol as it is regarded as a ozone depleter.
Now anyone with an iota of chemistry knowledge might suspect that replacing one halogen with another is not really likely to make too much of a change in a chemical's characteristics. And in this case you would be correct; Methyl Iodide is also highly toxic, being both a "neurotoxin and carcinogen that has caused thyroid tumors, neurological damage and miscarriages in lab animals".
"methyl iodide is nasty. If you want to use it you must employ a certified applicator, establish a buffer zone of 25 to 500 feet around the fields, no use within a quarter mile of a school, day care facility, nursing home, hospital, prison or playground. And if you are a shoveler, tractor driver or applicator you have to be trained and you have to wear a respirator. Farm workers can't re-enter the fields for five days after application."
The EPA is supposed to be the US 'Environmental Protection Agency': what the hell is going on over there?
ADDENDUM by Junkk Male - The author has kindly posted a correction which I repeat here:
"Note there was an inadvertent error in that post. Methyl bromide is an ozone depleter, not a greenhouse gas. My error. I corrected it in the post. "
It still doesn't sound like a very welcome addition to the gaseous cocktail we are sharing with future generations.
It relates to the interim approval by the EPA for the use of Methyl Iodide as a fumigant to replace highly toxic Methyl Bromide; approval for which has been withdrawn under the Montreal protocol as it is regarded as a ozone depleter.
Now anyone with an iota of chemistry knowledge might suspect that replacing one halogen with another is not really likely to make too much of a change in a chemical's characteristics. And in this case you would be correct; Methyl Iodide is also highly toxic, being both a "neurotoxin and carcinogen that has caused thyroid tumors, neurological damage and miscarriages in lab animals".
"methyl iodide is nasty. If you want to use it you must employ a certified applicator, establish a buffer zone of 25 to 500 feet around the fields, no use within a quarter mile of a school, day care facility, nursing home, hospital, prison or playground. And if you are a shoveler, tractor driver or applicator you have to be trained and you have to wear a respirator. Farm workers can't re-enter the fields for five days after application."
The EPA is supposed to be the US 'Environmental Protection Agency': what the hell is going on over there?
ADDENDUM by Junkk Male - The author has kindly posted a correction which I repeat here:
"Note there was an inadvertent error in that post. Methyl bromide is an ozone depleter, not a greenhouse gas. My error. I corrected it in the post. "
It still doesn't sound like a very welcome addition to the gaseous cocktail we are sharing with future generations.
An interesting snippet on Peak Oil
From Andrew Leonard of Salon.com, who takes a slightly bemused view of the rather optimistic stance that some in the oil industry are still taking; 'there's loads more left to be extracted from the planet' and 'climate change will make the extraction of oil from hostile polar regions easier'.
"The oil companies are going to be in business for a long long time, extracting every last milliliter of oil and gas from every last nook and cranny in the earth. Whether we can afford to pay for the resulting product is an entirely different question."
Quite!
________________
Well, unless you believe the Russian's theory that crude oil and natural petroleum gas are simply primordial materials erupted from the depths of our planet and nothing to do with being a biological residue of plant and animal fossil remains. As reported on Scoop in September.
"The oil companies are going to be in business for a long long time, extracting every last milliliter of oil and gas from every last nook and cranny in the earth. Whether we can afford to pay for the resulting product is an entirely different question."
Quite!
________________
Well, unless you believe the Russian's theory that crude oil and natural petroleum gas are simply primordial materials erupted from the depths of our planet and nothing to do with being a biological residue of plant and animal fossil remains. As reported on Scoop in September.
More warnings from Flannery
This quite intrigued me. According to The Mirror, Tim Flannery (who now appears to have become accepted as 'a world recognised climate change scientist') states that the forthcoming report from the IPCC (due in November) will "show that greenhouse gas in the atmosphere in mid-2005 had reached about 455 parts per million of carbon dioxide equivalent -- a level not expected for another 10 years."
Now that appears to be significantly important news; we are ten years ahead of schedule against what was actually one of the worst scenarios as far as greenhouse gasses are concerned.
"What the report establishes is that the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is already above the threshold that could potentially cause dangerous climate change."
OK, so where's the rest of the British press? This has been reported worldwide, across all types of publications, but so far, only the Mirror appears to have covered it here. This isn't a scare scenario, it is apparently reporting on scientifically measured levels of what is already in our atmosphere. It is extremely significant information.
Why the deafening silence from the UK meejah?
Addendum:
Just spotted that The Metro also carried this story yesterday too. Cannot immediately see any mention of it in the rest of the press though, yesterday or today.
Now that appears to be significantly important news; we are ten years ahead of schedule against what was actually one of the worst scenarios as far as greenhouse gasses are concerned.
"What the report establishes is that the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is already above the threshold that could potentially cause dangerous climate change."
OK, so where's the rest of the British press? This has been reported worldwide, across all types of publications, but so far, only the Mirror appears to have covered it here. This isn't a scare scenario, it is apparently reporting on scientifically measured levels of what is already in our atmosphere. It is extremely significant information.
Why the deafening silence from the UK meejah?
Addendum:
Just spotted that The Metro also carried this story yesterday too. Cannot immediately see any mention of it in the rest of the press though, yesterday or today.
Same hollow words - different acronym
My heart sank as I read this from the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. Sustainable Development now has a management speak acronym; you'd all better get used to 'SD'. Having only got to the end of the second paragraph, my memory was triggering 'I've read this before somewhere' alarms. By the time I'd reached the bullet points, the light dawned.
This is almost verbatim the same management speak that was used back in the 70's & 80's for Quality Improvement, in the 80's & 90's for Business Process Re-engineering, in the 90's for Information Management and in the late 90's & early this millennium, for Knowledge Management!
The words are pretty much all the same; simply substitute BPR, IM, KM or QI and its the same hollow meaningless management speak! I worked in a number of multi-nationals throughout those decades and there were literally hundreds of people who actually spoke like this!
"The third level comprises a critical analysis of skills in relation to key (enter buzzwords or acronym) issues outside of the company to inspire different ways of thinking about (enter buzzwords or acronym). The target audience for this level is people who will act as (enter buzzwords or acronym) ambassadors. An external partner conducts this training and each employee is assessed individually and must present an idea for possible implementation. A set proportion of an ambassador’s time is spent on this and it will soon be part of their job description."
"While it is reasonable for top management to be aware and involved [in (enter buzzwords or acronym)], that alone does not guarantee success. The top leadership must show that they support the direction the company is headed, but it still needs to be tied to the rationale of the business, the nuts and bolts; conviction is not enough."
I rest my case. We are now in the management speak era of 'SD'.
The problem is, this one is potentially critical to the future of our little planet and possibly even the future existence of humanity; I hope it doesn't get as hopelessly stuffed up as it has been in each previous iteration.
This is almost verbatim the same management speak that was used back in the 70's & 80's for Quality Improvement, in the 80's & 90's for Business Process Re-engineering, in the 90's for Information Management and in the late 90's & early this millennium, for Knowledge Management!
The words are pretty much all the same; simply substitute BPR, IM, KM or QI and its the same hollow meaningless management speak! I worked in a number of multi-nationals throughout those decades and there were literally hundreds of people who actually spoke like this!
"The third level comprises a critical analysis of skills in relation to key (enter buzzwords or acronym) issues outside of the company to inspire different ways of thinking about (enter buzzwords or acronym). The target audience for this level is people who will act as (enter buzzwords or acronym) ambassadors. An external partner conducts this training and each employee is assessed individually and must present an idea for possible implementation. A set proportion of an ambassador’s time is spent on this and it will soon be part of their job description."
"While it is reasonable for top management to be aware and involved [in (enter buzzwords or acronym)], that alone does not guarantee success. The top leadership must show that they support the direction the company is headed, but it still needs to be tied to the rationale of the business, the nuts and bolts; conviction is not enough."
I rest my case. We are now in the management speak era of 'SD'.
The problem is, this one is potentially critical to the future of our little planet and possibly even the future existence of humanity; I hope it doesn't get as hopelessly stuffed up as it has been in each previous iteration.
Byte me
Whitehaven switchover: a view from the local paper
When it rains (and in the UK it does on occasion), my digital reception ceases.
So as far as I can gather, I trashed the environment getting a bunch new kit and ditching a bunch of perfectly good old stuff to get a worse service.
As metaphors go for how the public are steered by government and mostly compliant media into a greener future I'd say that about covers it.
When it rains (and in the UK it does on occasion), my digital reception ceases.
So as far as I can gather, I trashed the environment getting a bunch new kit and ditching a bunch of perfectly good old stuff to get a worse service.
As metaphors go for how the public are steered by government and mostly compliant media into a greener future I'd say that about covers it.
Monday, October 08, 2007
Arctic ice loss hits the Walrus
This article from the International Herald Tribune details how thousands of Walruses have migrated to Alaska's rocky shores as their usual summer home, the ice pack, has receded way too far north.
The remaining ice pack was way north of the edge of the continental shelf, which is where their staple diet lives. The ice pack was over water too deep for them to dive for food, so the poor Walruses have had to find other locations to lay around on whilst bringing up their pups.
This raises the distinct possibility of mass starvation, as too many walruses migrating to the rocky coastline consume a diminishing supply of clams, snails etc. closer to the shore.
This is just another in the long line of indicators of what climate change just might do to various life forms on this planet. The thing is, Walruses will simply starve, pretty much until the population has dropped low enough to survive on the remaining food supply. Were a similar scenario to occur where humans are involved, the consequences will inevitably be much nastier, as we've learned to create, cherish, and use, to devastating effect, all manner of lethal weapons.
The remaining ice pack was way north of the edge of the continental shelf, which is where their staple diet lives. The ice pack was over water too deep for them to dive for food, so the poor Walruses have had to find other locations to lay around on whilst bringing up their pups.
This raises the distinct possibility of mass starvation, as too many walruses migrating to the rocky coastline consume a diminishing supply of clams, snails etc. closer to the shore.
This is just another in the long line of indicators of what climate change just might do to various life forms on this planet. The thing is, Walruses will simply starve, pretty much until the population has dropped low enough to survive on the remaining food supply. Were a similar scenario to occur where humans are involved, the consequences will inevitably be much nastier, as we've learned to create, cherish, and use, to devastating effect, all manner of lethal weapons.
An Englishman's home is his (draughty) castle
Little demand for zero carbon buildings?
As with all things green and consumer, there is a basic 3-legged stool upon which anything sits.
First there is 'us', the public who buy. Or don't.
Then there are those who sell to us. Or don't.
And then there is that funny old collection of folk who charge taxes aplenty to fund all manner of officers and heads of and departments and ministries and things to shape what gets bought and/or sold, how it gets bought and sold and often when it gets bought and sold.
So if there is any lack of seriousness in this little balancing act, whilst I can see the very real, selfish and/or greedy reasons for two of them being a little less than proactive (though why building, buying and/or living in a house that costs less to heat, etc in a reasonable lifetime would be a negative escapes me) I'm wondering if we are not remiss in looking more critically at the guys in charge and the track record of their boss, who currently seems to be trying to dig himself out of the current sticky affair by having his chaps big him up for avoiding the 'green trap' the other parties have been suckered into.
ADDENDUM
A day goes by and we get the same thing. This time... pumpkins!
It's bad enough that most of the blasted things are not eaten but carved, rot and then thrown out to rot, but now 'we' find that 'we' are responsible for hot air blowers going 24/7 to turn them from green to orange.
And everyone is pointing at each other. The retailers say the public demand it. The growers say the supermarkets demand it. The media just go tut-tut and the government stays out of it. No change there, then.
Farcical.
As with all things green and consumer, there is a basic 3-legged stool upon which anything sits.
First there is 'us', the public who buy. Or don't.
Then there are those who sell to us. Or don't.
And then there is that funny old collection of folk who charge taxes aplenty to fund all manner of officers and heads of and departments and ministries and things to shape what gets bought and/or sold, how it gets bought and sold and often when it gets bought and sold.
So if there is any lack of seriousness in this little balancing act, whilst I can see the very real, selfish and/or greedy reasons for two of them being a little less than proactive (though why building, buying and/or living in a house that costs less to heat, etc in a reasonable lifetime would be a negative escapes me) I'm wondering if we are not remiss in looking more critically at the guys in charge and the track record of their boss, who currently seems to be trying to dig himself out of the current sticky affair by having his chaps big him up for avoiding the 'green trap' the other parties have been suckered into.
ADDENDUM
A day goes by and we get the same thing. This time... pumpkins!
It's bad enough that most of the blasted things are not eaten but carved, rot and then thrown out to rot, but now 'we' find that 'we' are responsible for hot air blowers going 24/7 to turn them from green to orange.
And everyone is pointing at each other. The retailers say the public demand it. The growers say the supermarkets demand it. The media just go tut-tut and the government stays out of it. No change there, then.
Farcical.
Foraging with the Freegans
No, I haven't made the term up, its a composite of Free and Vegan. This from CBS News explains how 'Freegans' forage through dumpsters at night looking for food and clothing.
They "oppose over-consumption and capitalism. They live their lives using what others throw away."
"This is like living in the woods: You have to know where the mushrooms grow. You have to know where the stores are that throw out the things you want."
And what scares them the most? The garbage truck!
They "oppose over-consumption and capitalism. They live their lives using what others throw away."
"This is like living in the woods: You have to know where the mushrooms grow. You have to know where the stores are that throw out the things you want."
And what scares them the most? The garbage truck!
PROF'S POSER - Paper vs. Hard Drive
I just got a PDF. Read it and was about to archive it on my PC when I wondered... is that better in enviROI terms than printing it out?
It was 1.5M. Not huge in the great scheme of things (well, these days), but 99 more and I have a Gig. 99 more of those and I have my hard drive. And when that's full, I need a new one, plus backup.
Is that one sheet of A4 (Viking recycled) I have printed out really so bad?
Note: Prof's Posers appear on the site and also in Junkk.com newsletters. We've had a few interesting bits of feedback. See what this one may bring.
It was 1.5M. Not huge in the great scheme of things (well, these days), but 99 more and I have a Gig. 99 more of those and I have my hard drive. And when that's full, I need a new one, plus backup.
Is that one sheet of A4 (Viking recycled) I have printed out really so bad?
Note: Prof's Posers appear on the site and also in Junkk.com newsletters. We've had a few interesting bits of feedback. See what this one may bring.
Can science really save the world?
A question posed in The Observer yesterday which I was intending to pass comment on; only to find that the ever amusing Anorak site had already done it for me!
Friday, October 05, 2007
Perhaps we'll get relegated to the second division?
According to this from YahooNews, Britain comes pretty close to the bottom of the table when compared to other countries in terms of per capita CO2 emissions.
Our per capita emissions were more than double the worldwide average in 2004; worse still, even though many of us point the finger across the water at their apparent profligate use of energy, we even finish behind the United States!
Surely its time for someone in power to take the bull by the horns and do something to sort things out?
Our per capita emissions were more than double the worldwide average in 2004; worse still, even though many of us point the finger across the water at their apparent profligate use of energy, we even finish behind the United States!
Surely its time for someone in power to take the bull by the horns and do something to sort things out?
I'm virtually ecstatic!
I have been meaning to write about my feelings (hey, it's Friday) on the subject of e-publication for a while, and now I have had the perfect prompt *(see below).
PRW is an excellent resource for folks like me (however in it's full monty title of Plastics and Rubber Weekly, a majority of Junkk.com readers may pass). It not only is an easy read, but very topical. And I get pots of good leads. I've even been known to write in.
And, as you'll gather, on top of a nifty way of making a silk purse from a sow's ear they have come up with a cunning marketing wheeze: an e-version.
I already get several. And some I pay for. In a few cases quite a lot. The Ecologist is one. Trouble is, having got to my annual renewal reminder, I have realised I have never read it... online at least. On a few occasions I have even bought a copy at the newsstand - on top.
It may just be me, but I can't get into them. I think part of it is that when I work 12 hrs a day in front of a screen anyway, adding to that eye and RSI-strain a second further with my background reading is not an appealing prospect. Because I have to remain rooted here to do it.
No deckchair in the sun. No quick few pages in the small room (excuse the image that may have created). No catch up in the train (I don't do power-exec lappy space hogging).
I know it's not perhaps very eco to admit it, but it just doesn't appeal in comparison to having a page that I can fold, tear or highlighter-pen... and then stuff in my pocket... to hand. Sorry.
So I'll look forward to my copy in the mail (while the GPO are still in business - at which point I may have no choice, and trees may breathe CO2 easier). But meantime this is a nice complement.
*Unfortunately, the postal strike is likely to delay the delivery of your copy of PRW magazine this week.
However, you can view the latest edition right now by clicking here.
The full issue is available on-line.
The digital edition is exactly the same as the printed issue, which will reach readers next week when the strike ends.
PRW is an excellent resource for folks like me (however in it's full monty title of Plastics and Rubber Weekly, a majority of Junkk.com readers may pass). It not only is an easy read, but very topical. And I get pots of good leads. I've even been known to write in.
And, as you'll gather, on top of a nifty way of making a silk purse from a sow's ear they have come up with a cunning marketing wheeze: an e-version.
I already get several. And some I pay for. In a few cases quite a lot. The Ecologist is one. Trouble is, having got to my annual renewal reminder, I have realised I have never read it... online at least. On a few occasions I have even bought a copy at the newsstand - on top.
It may just be me, but I can't get into them. I think part of it is that when I work 12 hrs a day in front of a screen anyway, adding to that eye and RSI-strain a second further with my background reading is not an appealing prospect. Because I have to remain rooted here to do it.
No deckchair in the sun. No quick few pages in the small room (excuse the image that may have created). No catch up in the train (I don't do power-exec lappy space hogging).
I know it's not perhaps very eco to admit it, but it just doesn't appeal in comparison to having a page that I can fold, tear or highlighter-pen... and then stuff in my pocket... to hand. Sorry.
So I'll look forward to my copy in the mail (while the GPO are still in business - at which point I may have no choice, and trees may breathe CO2 easier). But meantime this is a nice complement.
*Unfortunately, the postal strike is likely to delay the delivery of your copy of PRW magazine this week.
However, you can view the latest edition right now by clicking here.
The full issue is available on-line.
The digital edition is exactly the same as the printed issue, which will reach readers next week when the strike ends.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
In the dark on green lighting
I am signed up to a doo-dad that means I get sent HMG press releases. And very useful they can be.
And because my 'patch' covers the UK, I have signed up to all, so often a few that can get duplicated according to regions that enjoy the same story.
So it was with interest in noted the following, which covered more than one area: Multi million PFI upgrade for Sheffield's [and others] streetlights
Sheffield's streets are set to benefit from £79.3million in Private Finance Initiative investment, Transport Minister Rosie Winterton announced today.
The funding will allow Sheffield City Council to secure a private sector partner to upgrade 59,000 of Sheffield's streetlights over the next 25 years.
Rosie Winterton said:"Experience shows that better streetlighting helps improve road safety, as well as reducing crime and the fear of crime. I am very pleased that Sheffield is using this PFI arrangement to deliver real benefits to motorists and pedestrians alike. "
Government support of PFI credits for local authorities has been endorsed by the interdepartmental Project Review Group (PRG). A full list of the schemes approved by PRG can be found on the website of the Department for Communities and Local Government.
Now this is all very woo-pee-doo. Why am I blogging it?
Well, there's another aspect to lighting that usually doesn't get a look-in, and that's the eco-aspects. Now it may well be that it is in there somewhere (time precludes), but I can't help but feel that if it was they'd be crowing about it.
Which means there is a slim chance that there is a lot of light... but also hot air... being given off here.
And because my 'patch' covers the UK, I have signed up to all, so often a few that can get duplicated according to regions that enjoy the same story.
So it was with interest in noted the following, which covered more than one area: Multi million PFI upgrade for Sheffield's [and others] streetlights
Sheffield's streets are set to benefit from £79.3million in Private Finance Initiative investment, Transport Minister Rosie Winterton announced today.
The funding will allow Sheffield City Council to secure a private sector partner to upgrade 59,000 of Sheffield's streetlights over the next 25 years.
Rosie Winterton said:"Experience shows that better streetlighting helps improve road safety, as well as reducing crime and the fear of crime. I am very pleased that Sheffield is using this PFI arrangement to deliver real benefits to motorists and pedestrians alike. "
Government support of PFI credits for local authorities has been endorsed by the interdepartmental Project Review Group (PRG). A full list of the schemes approved by PRG can be found on the website of the Department for Communities and Local Government.
Now this is all very woo-pee-doo. Why am I blogging it?
Well, there's another aspect to lighting that usually doesn't get a look-in, and that's the eco-aspects. Now it may well be that it is in there somewhere (time precludes), but I can't help but feel that if it was they'd be crowing about it.
Which means there is a slim chance that there is a lot of light... but also hot air... being given off here.
And I still have all my teeth!
Junkk.com costs a lot of money. And time. So only today I was at a networking bash trying to drum up some work for the other thing I do - copywriting - to pay a few bills.
I am therefore not encouraged by this: THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM IN ADVERTISING
I print it all here as there are some key bits I need to highlight:
Don't look away. I'm not covered with boils or zits. I am not unwashed or uneducated. I don't shout, play my mobile phone loudly, or leak spittle onto my chin. I don't put my feet onto the seat in front of me. I don't rabbit on about Iraq, the common market or Cherie Blair's mouth.
(Perhaps I should?) I am not the ugly man on the Victoria train begging for money, who always gets off at Brixton.
It's just that I'm old. No, please don't look away.
It's a cardinal sin in advertising- especially in London. Everybody knows about it, and nobody does anything about it. I've been to all the headhunters, and as soon as they see me, they have said, one after another, "it's ageism, I'm sorry, it's London. I can't do anything about it. It's just the way it is." Is there anywhere a copywriter in their 40's? Their 50's? What about an art director in their late 50's? With awards, too?
Talking about headhunters? Yes 39 of them - that takes in pretty much everyone, doesn't it? I've yet to hear from any of them. Are they useless or plain *****ing useless, or are they just following orders? And I still apply for stuff all over the world on the net, but as you know, of a 100, only two ever bother to reply, months later, to say that job has been cancelled.
The law supposedly banning ageism came into force in 2006.There was even an ad campaign by BBH. Did anybody register a slightest difference? No.
Another Labour whitewash. There are agencies with bean bags, that resemble kindergartens. Specially geared to the young, obviously. It's deliberately difficult for anyone over 30 to get up from those. Although I've stopped putting my date of birth on the CV, it doesn't take a genius to work out your age.
What was my biggest sin? I went abroad. In that time, the swallowing up of agencies happened. Everyone was bought up, or wanted to be bought up, and they still do. Everyone I ever worked with, is and has been, out of work for decades. Talented people. Big shots. People who were my creative directors, with awards and fancy cars. They're existing on their spouses' salaries- women always manage to get work somewhere, it seems. That's of those I've managed to trace. The rest have disappeared. They're probably running antique shops, dog obedience academies, accordion schools or have become driving instructors.
The biggest insult? Today I got a mailer from Sun Life- there's an irony- about a funeral plan
RE: THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM IN ADVERTISING
by: BR team
Unfortunately, the facts support Beverly’s experience. According to the IPA census report published in January, the mean age of the 17,367 people working in creative and media agencies is 33.4, with 47.5% of the permanent workforce aged 30 or under. Only 13.2% are aged 31-40 and only 4.6% are aged 51-60 (or 795 people in the whole industry. And for that fast growing UK age demographic of 60+? Only 94 people or 0.5% work in advertising.
So I wrote in:
I hear you (amazingly, without the need for a hearing aid, too).
It's odd, isn't it? All those committees and talking heads spouting off about legalisation and all, but when push comes to shove there's an awful lot that needn't happen between CV and interview post sound-bite. But a equal-opp box is still ticked each second, I'm sure.
Me....? I was thinking of knocking at least a decade off (as my kids are not even teenagers yet), investing in some Grecian 2000 and lying through my teeth to get at least to a point in a personal mano-a-munchkin exchange in which 'their' overt ageism will be worse than 'my' fibbing on a form. Who dares, wins... compo! I really don't understand what the problem is in their heads. As a a twenty-something writer my loyalty was about as reliable as my attention span and I'd jump for a tenner more, or less if there was a chance at tee-vee. What do they think we mature types are going to do - croak pulling an all-nighter or leave within a year?
Or maybe I'll just work virtually, as really it what you can do that matters, not who you are. The porty, after all... is all, right? Or, from what you say, perhaps not.
What was that movie about the McCarthy era when those with talent and experience had to hire 'acceptable' faces to 'be' them just to get work: The Front?
I'm thinking it might be a wheeze to create a virtual agency of hip young things who don't need to be paid so much on what they can do as how they look, all 'fed' by the real brains who don't fit the image but can still crank out great work (that also works for clients' bottom lines every bit as much as Ivy-envy-generating awards) from the comfort of home.
Make a heck of a reality TV show... if any chrome-dome, Specsavers-sporting yoof types in broadcasting are up for a real idea with some legs:)
Failing which, well, looking on the bright side, my car insurance is getting cheaper!
Sorry, Junkk-regulars, that this is not too much on eco-mode, but I needed to vent a bit on the state of how things get run, and it does extend to government and beyond, so it could well extend to how this planet is gettingmis-managed by hype over experience at a stretch.
ADDENDUM
The incendiary tax?
In the 'fight back', I have noticed the well-trained..er.. briefed cabinet clones and supporting sympathetic/sycophantic media are spinning this as applicable to a very small number of folk and dependents who don't deserve 'it'.
I'll have to leave the reality of that to the lies, damn lies and political number crunchers to fight over.
All I know is that when my Mum hit 75 she could no longer look after herself. So we sold her big house and popped her in a small one next to ours so I could keep an eye on her. Ten years on the system still seems to be working out OK but we're hitting end point soon I fear.
At no point has she been a real burden on 'society' as the family has looked after her, and her own funds have kept her comfortable and helped us in doing so too.
Thing is, at 50, and having worked from home for a decade, with my old CV, any attempt to hit the workforce as a consequence of various downturns, combined with the farce that is the equal opportunity legislation on any practical application (ask anyone over 40 - who admits to it - how a CV gets treated), means I am looking at a very long creek ahead and a very short paddle.
What's left of Mum's legacy would go a long way to mitigating that and help me feel a bit better about where my future will be placed without being a burden on the kids or society either.
So to all those well paid and golden pensioned Ministers and media luvvies who can't see how this might play well with those who do work hard and try and keep things in the family, I have a very short phrase for you: at least I still have my vote.
I am therefore not encouraged by this: THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM IN ADVERTISING
I print it all here as there are some key bits I need to highlight:
Don't look away. I'm not covered with boils or zits. I am not unwashed or uneducated. I don't shout, play my mobile phone loudly, or leak spittle onto my chin. I don't put my feet onto the seat in front of me. I don't rabbit on about Iraq, the common market or Cherie Blair's mouth.
(Perhaps I should?) I am not the ugly man on the Victoria train begging for money, who always gets off at Brixton.
It's just that I'm old. No, please don't look away.
It's a cardinal sin in advertising- especially in London. Everybody knows about it, and nobody does anything about it. I've been to all the headhunters, and as soon as they see me, they have said, one after another, "it's ageism, I'm sorry, it's London. I can't do anything about it. It's just the way it is." Is there anywhere a copywriter in their 40's? Their 50's? What about an art director in their late 50's? With awards, too?
Talking about headhunters? Yes 39 of them - that takes in pretty much everyone, doesn't it? I've yet to hear from any of them. Are they useless or plain *****ing useless, or are they just following orders? And I still apply for stuff all over the world on the net, but as you know, of a 100, only two ever bother to reply, months later, to say that job has been cancelled.
The law supposedly banning ageism came into force in 2006.There was even an ad campaign by BBH. Did anybody register a slightest difference? No.
Another Labour whitewash. There are agencies with bean bags, that resemble kindergartens. Specially geared to the young, obviously. It's deliberately difficult for anyone over 30 to get up from those. Although I've stopped putting my date of birth on the CV, it doesn't take a genius to work out your age.
What was my biggest sin? I went abroad. In that time, the swallowing up of agencies happened. Everyone was bought up, or wanted to be bought up, and they still do. Everyone I ever worked with, is and has been, out of work for decades. Talented people. Big shots. People who were my creative directors, with awards and fancy cars. They're existing on their spouses' salaries- women always manage to get work somewhere, it seems. That's of those I've managed to trace. The rest have disappeared. They're probably running antique shops, dog obedience academies, accordion schools or have become driving instructors.
The biggest insult? Today I got a mailer from Sun Life- there's an irony- about a funeral plan
RE: THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM IN ADVERTISING
by: BR team
Unfortunately, the facts support Beverly’s experience. According to the IPA census report published in January, the mean age of the 17,367 people working in creative and media agencies is 33.4, with 47.5% of the permanent workforce aged 30 or under. Only 13.2% are aged 31-40 and only 4.6% are aged 51-60 (or 795 people in the whole industry. And for that fast growing UK age demographic of 60+? Only 94 people or 0.5% work in advertising.
So I wrote in:
I hear you (amazingly, without the need for a hearing aid, too).
It's odd, isn't it? All those committees and talking heads spouting off about legalisation and all, but when push comes to shove there's an awful lot that needn't happen between CV and interview post sound-bite. But a equal-opp box is still ticked each second, I'm sure.
Me....? I was thinking of knocking at least a decade off (as my kids are not even teenagers yet), investing in some Grecian 2000 and lying through my teeth to get at least to a point in a personal mano-a-munchkin exchange in which 'their' overt ageism will be worse than 'my' fibbing on a form. Who dares, wins... compo! I really don't understand what the problem is in their heads. As a a twenty-something writer my loyalty was about as reliable as my attention span and I'd jump for a tenner more, or less if there was a chance at tee-vee. What do they think we mature types are going to do - croak pulling an all-nighter or leave within a year?
Or maybe I'll just work virtually, as really it what you can do that matters, not who you are. The porty, after all... is all, right? Or, from what you say, perhaps not.
What was that movie about the McCarthy era when those with talent and experience had to hire 'acceptable' faces to 'be' them just to get work: The Front?
I'm thinking it might be a wheeze to create a virtual agency of hip young things who don't need to be paid so much on what they can do as how they look, all 'fed' by the real brains who don't fit the image but can still crank out great work (that also works for clients' bottom lines every bit as much as Ivy-envy-generating awards) from the comfort of home.
Make a heck of a reality TV show... if any chrome-dome, Specsavers-sporting yoof types in broadcasting are up for a real idea with some legs:)
Failing which, well, looking on the bright side, my car insurance is getting cheaper!
Sorry, Junkk-regulars, that this is not too much on eco-mode, but I needed to vent a bit on the state of how things get run, and it does extend to government and beyond, so it could well extend to how this planet is gettingmis-managed by hype over experience at a stretch.
ADDENDUM
The incendiary tax?
In the 'fight back', I have noticed the well-trained..er.. briefed cabinet clones and supporting sympathetic/sycophantic media are spinning this as applicable to a very small number of folk and dependents who don't deserve 'it'.
I'll have to leave the reality of that to the lies, damn lies and political number crunchers to fight over.
All I know is that when my Mum hit 75 she could no longer look after herself. So we sold her big house and popped her in a small one next to ours so I could keep an eye on her. Ten years on the system still seems to be working out OK but we're hitting end point soon I fear.
At no point has she been a real burden on 'society' as the family has looked after her, and her own funds have kept her comfortable and helped us in doing so too.
Thing is, at 50, and having worked from home for a decade, with my old CV, any attempt to hit the workforce as a consequence of various downturns, combined with the farce that is the equal opportunity legislation on any practical application (ask anyone over 40 - who admits to it - how a CV gets treated), means I am looking at a very long creek ahead and a very short paddle.
What's left of Mum's legacy would go a long way to mitigating that and help me feel a bit better about where my future will be placed without being a burden on the kids or society either.
So to all those well paid and golden pensioned Ministers and media luvvies who can't see how this might play well with those who do work hard and try and keep things in the family, I have a very short phrase for you: at least I still have my vote.
COMPETITION - Ben & Jerry's Climate Change College
WHEN: October 30
WHAT: Ben & Jerry's Climate Change College
WHAT... MORE?: If you are 18-30 with an idea to lick global warming, then join us on an expedition to the Arctic to study the effects of climate change on our planet
HOW MUCH: Free!
URL: http://www.climatechangecollege.org/home.php
COMMENTS: Not too sure about clips I saw. Looks less than constructive. And more like a party in the Arctic. But as I am ineligible it's academic (geddit?).
What go me here was a thing on a social enterprise site that said 'The Climate Change College consists of a nine month business mentoring programme and a £5000 grant for each successful candidate to launch an entrepreneurial project to tackle climate change.' If you can find it... good luck!
I've written to them:
A little intrigued by the website - have you watched it?
I was not to clear about how the money is dispersed.
But also noted the first project seemed to be vandalising 4x4s.
The second seemed to be saying saving the planet requires travelling (er, how?) to the icy wastes to have parties.
Not against fun (noting it is a very ageist effort as well - why 30 as a cut off?), but if this is what is being promoted, as I can't honestly endorse it much.
ADDENDUM:
I have had a very thorough reply, thanks to the press office:
I checked out the website before putting it in the newsletter and feel confident that it has a responsible attitude. The students do go to the Arctic but their travel is offset through a carbon offsetting scheme and they go to learn the effects of climate change firsthand to be successful ambassadors.
As for the funding, I think this par covers it roughly:
The College consists of a 9 month business mentoring programme (worth €21,000 per student) and a €7,000 monetary grant to launch a unique project. The programme is largely virtual with a 1-1 mentor, except for a 3 day workshop in Brussels in February and a two week scientific field trip to the Arctic in April. All travel is covered by Ben & Jerry’s and is offset through Cool Your Jets which invests in renewable energy projects.
The videos do have a comic aspect (incl the partying in the arctic bit) because they are trying to appeal to young people, and its very much in a Ben and Jerry’s style. The vandalising 4x4s is a jokey ad that ends with the words – There are better ways to fight climate change.
I do take your point about ageism but hundreds of programmes are directed purely at ‘youth’ including a number of government funded programmes (for example the Make Your Mark Campaign) that we are involved in.
And while I can concede most, I did have to make the following points:
My main concern was the 4x4. I honestly missed the end because it went on a bit and I thought it was not something I could support so I clicked off.
I wonder how many others might have done the same?
I made the ageism comment more on a personal basis having been excluded from a Guardian cartoon competition on the same basis.
For 'youth'.... 16 no problem. 18 ok. 21 at a stretch. 30? Next thing I'll find I can't go 18-30 clubbing any more.
Sorry. That's just cynical market demographics at work.
The Currently Can't Reasonably Really Abide Any Party Party
It is a real quandary: What greener politics?
I empathise.
Having toyed with Jedi Knights, NOTA (None of the above) and my most recent favourite, the Currently Can't Reasonably Really Abide Any Party Party, I am faced with the unpalatable fact that any 'protest' I may wish to make that they all suck simply gets dismissed as 'spoiled'.
The alternative is equally unappealing, especially if we enter the realms of 'tactical' voting. Some clown who gets 20% of the 20% who can be bothered to turn out pops up next day to claim a several year 'mandate from the people'.
If you do care about matters green, then the name does lend itself to one choice. But along with the planet I have kids to educate, a dotage to fund, etc, so it's looking like, for me, the lesser of three weevils.
BBC - Green agenda of conference season
I empathise.
Having toyed with Jedi Knights, NOTA (None of the above) and my most recent favourite, the Currently Can't Reasonably Really Abide Any Party Party, I am faced with the unpalatable fact that any 'protest' I may wish to make that they all suck simply gets dismissed as 'spoiled'.
The alternative is equally unappealing, especially if we enter the realms of 'tactical' voting. Some clown who gets 20% of the 20% who can be bothered to turn out pops up next day to claim a several year 'mandate from the people'.
If you do care about matters green, then the name does lend itself to one choice. But along with the planet I have kids to educate, a dotage to fund, etc, so it's looking like, for me, the lesser of three weevils.
BBC - Green agenda of conference season
Having it all ways?
No, I am not trying to get banned.
It's just what popped into my head when the ever-excellent Ecologist quoted the usually excellent Friends of the Earth on the matter of the Severn barrage (I'll pop in a link if I can find one):
"To seriously damage and important wildlife site to generate less than 1% of the UK's energy is not the way to lead the world in sustainable development'.
Hmnn. I can see a literal point being made here, but surely it is outweighed by a host of practical ones.
The big issue is nature vs. man (as if we are not part of the ecosystem as an organism, and were designed by...?). Yes, this will trash yet more green and pleasant to provide a less than essential commodity to feed such must-haves as the PC upon which I write.
But I am darned if I can see what the FoE expect. Even without Global Warming polar bears would eventually be consumed by Club Nome, as our population expands without check.
I'm afraid that, on a a pragmatic basis at least, if there is going to be a demand for energy that is currently fulled by carbon, I fear 99 more wildlife reserve may have to be sacrificed to meet it.
Or... we could just cut back. Odds?
It's just what popped into my head when the ever-excellent Ecologist quoted the usually excellent Friends of the Earth on the matter of the Severn barrage (I'll pop in a link if I can find one):
"To seriously damage and important wildlife site to generate less than 1% of the UK's energy is not the way to lead the world in sustainable development'.
Hmnn. I can see a literal point being made here, but surely it is outweighed by a host of practical ones.
The big issue is nature vs. man (as if we are not part of the ecosystem as an organism, and were designed by...?). Yes, this will trash yet more green and pleasant to provide a less than essential commodity to feed such must-haves as the PC upon which I write.
But I am darned if I can see what the FoE expect. Even without Global Warming polar bears would eventually be consumed by Club Nome, as our population expands without check.
I'm afraid that, on a a pragmatic basis at least, if there is going to be a demand for energy that is currently fulled by carbon, I fear 99 more wildlife reserve may have to be sacrificed to meet it.
Or... we could just cut back. Odds?
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Greedy me is happy. Green me, however...
This just in from HMG: UK - Singapore air services agreement (no link - think it must be my Mac - so in full).
The UK and Singapore have initialled a landmark aviation agreement on air services.
The new liberalising deal removes all restrictions on air services between the two countries. It opens access to each country's aviation market for the other country's airlines, including flights to onward destinations in other countries, and applies state aid rules to ensure fair competition. It also finalises a new treaty that liberalises arrangements on a wide range of further issues including codesharing, fair competition, and groundhandling.
Aviation Minister Jim Fitzpatrick said:
"I am delighted by this new deal, which will be good for passengers and for the aviation industry both in the UK and Singapore. It is the most liberal agreement of its type, and I hope it will set the standard for other comparable agreements in the future. This is a major step towards extending the benefits of open aviation agreements that travellers already enjoy within Europe."
The new deal will allow the airlines of both sides to operate services between the other country and any third country. It is the first agreement that gives unfettered access to the London-US market to a non-EU or US airline.
In summary, this means it's now easier (and cheaper) all round to fly between here and Singapore? Good for visiting MaMa and Kong Kong I guess, but in that 12,000 mile trip just how much gets emitted? I'm guessing there is some trading weasel involved on targets.
The UK and Singapore have initialled a landmark aviation agreement on air services.
The new liberalising deal removes all restrictions on air services between the two countries. It opens access to each country's aviation market for the other country's airlines, including flights to onward destinations in other countries, and applies state aid rules to ensure fair competition. It also finalises a new treaty that liberalises arrangements on a wide range of further issues including codesharing, fair competition, and groundhandling.
Aviation Minister Jim Fitzpatrick said:
"I am delighted by this new deal, which will be good for passengers and for the aviation industry both in the UK and Singapore. It is the most liberal agreement of its type, and I hope it will set the standard for other comparable agreements in the future. This is a major step towards extending the benefits of open aviation agreements that travellers already enjoy within Europe."
The new deal will allow the airlines of both sides to operate services between the other country and any third country. It is the first agreement that gives unfettered access to the London-US market to a non-EU or US airline.
In summary, this means it's now easier (and cheaper) all round to fly between here and Singapore? Good for visiting MaMa and Kong Kong I guess, but in that 12,000 mile trip just how much gets emitted? I'm guessing there is some trading weasel involved on targets.
Europe's 20% target needs tougher legislation
The European Renewable Energy Council (EREC) yesterday recommended that Europe's commitment to realizing 20% of energy from renewables target requires tough legislation.
As reported in Renewable Energy World, EREC calls on the European Commission to "give itself the means to impose fines on Member States if it becomes clear that they will not reach their national binding target".
"Efforts to downplay the renewable energy target by stressing the greater significance of the greenhouse gas reduction target - for instance by including nuclear energy to count towards the renewables target - need to be turned down".
Perhaps our lamentable progress in the UK so far, and the apparent attempt to play down the significance of the target, as we commented on back in August, could see our own government having to pay big fines in the coming years?
As reported in Renewable Energy World, EREC calls on the European Commission to "give itself the means to impose fines on Member States if it becomes clear that they will not reach their national binding target".
"Efforts to downplay the renewable energy target by stressing the greater significance of the greenhouse gas reduction target - for instance by including nuclear energy to count towards the renewables target - need to be turned down".
Perhaps our lamentable progress in the UK so far, and the apparent attempt to play down the significance of the target, as we commented on back in August, could see our own government having to pay big fines in the coming years?
Shape of things to come?
Netherlands to launch carbon-based packaging tax
And why not? Can only help Junkk.nl. Add value to the pack to make its tax worthwhile:)
Though it is claimed that previous experience "shows that it is impossible to compare fairly all of the environmental factors of each packaging material, let alone the packaging produced from those materials".
But one has to wonder who an agreement was reached between the country's environment ministry, local authorities and industry. Whilst here....
No mention of the poor old punter, mind.
Packaging association warns against environmental taxes
How to make sense of packaging regulations
And why not? Can only help Junkk.nl. Add value to the pack to make its tax worthwhile:)
Though it is claimed that previous experience "shows that it is impossible to compare fairly all of the environmental factors of each packaging material, let alone the packaging produced from those materials".
But one has to wonder who an agreement was reached between the country's environment ministry, local authorities and industry. Whilst here....
No mention of the poor old punter, mind.
Packaging association warns against environmental taxes
How to make sense of packaging regulations
How a headline can mislead
Now when I saw this headline in today's Times - 'U-turn on showing of Al Gore climate change film in school' - I thought, oh, they have stopped schools from showing the film to their pupils, I wonder why.
So I read the article, only to discover that far from not stopping the film being shown, schools have simply been issued with new guidance about how to present the film, because some thought that the film was 'brainwashing' and 'too political'.
Now I'm all in favour of things being balanced, and of all sides and points of view being presented equitably, which the new guidance is supposedly going to assist with; but a headline like that is, to say the least, rather misrepresentative of the underlying story.
I'll bet that sometime before this day is over, someone will tell me that they've stopped showing 'An Inconvenient Truth' in schools; "it's definitely true, I saw it in The Times".
ADDENDUM (From Junkk Male) - I agree on the headline. But still have to wonder about the logic behind it all and how it has been handled, especially with many more up to date accounts soon on offer (on this very blog).
Telegraph - Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth' can be shown to schools
BBC - Climate film allowed in schools
So I read the article, only to discover that far from not stopping the film being shown, schools have simply been issued with new guidance about how to present the film, because some thought that the film was 'brainwashing' and 'too political'.
Now I'm all in favour of things being balanced, and of all sides and points of view being presented equitably, which the new guidance is supposedly going to assist with; but a headline like that is, to say the least, rather misrepresentative of the underlying story.
I'll bet that sometime before this day is over, someone will tell me that they've stopped showing 'An Inconvenient Truth' in schools; "it's definitely true, I saw it in The Times".
ADDENDUM (From Junkk Male) - I agree on the headline. But still have to wonder about the logic behind it all and how it has been handled, especially with many more up to date accounts soon on offer (on this very blog).
Telegraph - Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth' can be shown to schools
BBC - Climate film allowed in schools
Well, they did ask
Crude awakening
Why aren't more people talking about the imminent oil supply crisis?
Possible Ans: Maybe because the political leader and the political leadership (in theory) looking ahead at how best to lead this country usually have a few other things on their minds right now (emphasis on right now, which will apply to anything that can be grabbed for a bit of spin so that anything awkward can be deferred at least until the gold-plated pension kicks in).
Thanks for the heads up on the doco. Sounds like it's well worth a scope.
Why aren't more people talking about the imminent oil supply crisis?
Possible Ans: Maybe because the political leader and the political leadership (in theory) looking ahead at how best to lead this country usually have a few other things on their minds right now (emphasis on right now, which will apply to anything that can be grabbed for a bit of spin so that anything awkward can be deferred at least until the gold-plated pension kicks in).
Thanks for the heads up on the doco. Sounds like it's well worth a scope.
No wonder the Arctic ice melt was a record
This from today's Independent reports that scientists on Melville Island, usually one of the coldest places within the Arctic circle, recorded a summer temperature of 22C. This is where the daily summer temperature rarely goes above 5C.
Now 22C is about as warm as I can remember it getting where I live in the UK this summer! Whether or not you believe global warming is man-made, man-enhanced or just simply a natural cycle, an Arctic circle temperature of 22C is pretty damned significant evidence, along with a record ice melt year, that something rather strange is happening to the climate of our little lump of planetary rock.
ADDENDUM (by Junkk Male) -
I'll be impressed that any can deny that something darned odd isn't happening!
However, just to show that the causes (enviROI+ mitigation being a given, at least on this blog) may not be so clear cut... yet: Carbon Dioxide Did Not End The Last Ice Age, Study Says
What I loved was the Google ad:
Global Warming
If you are aged 11-18 you can win a trip to see the impact first hand
climatechallenge.gov.uk/competition
That'll sort it!
Real Climate - Cosmic rays don’t die so easily - now that little lot takes some wading through!
Now 22C is about as warm as I can remember it getting where I live in the UK this summer! Whether or not you believe global warming is man-made, man-enhanced or just simply a natural cycle, an Arctic circle temperature of 22C is pretty damned significant evidence, along with a record ice melt year, that something rather strange is happening to the climate of our little lump of planetary rock.
ADDENDUM (by Junkk Male) -
I'll be impressed that any can deny that something darned odd isn't happening!
However, just to show that the causes (enviROI+ mitigation being a given, at least on this blog) may not be so clear cut... yet: Carbon Dioxide Did Not End The Last Ice Age, Study Says
What I loved was the Google ad:
Global Warming
If you are aged 11-18 you can win a trip to see the impact first hand
climatechallenge.gov.uk/competition
That'll sort it!
Real Climate - Cosmic rays don’t die so easily - now that little lot takes some wading through!
A Greenie's home is their piggy bank
As an example of Junkk's mission statement of 'save (or make) money as well as the environment', this 'un is hard to fault: Self-built house voted greenest in Britain is sold for profit of £625,000
Good on 'em. Maybe all the consultants being hired in the gov, local gov and quango field should be at least pointed their way and asked (at tax payer's expense) to write on one side of A4 a justification how this family can do it and they couldn't join up two LEGO blocks without a 6-year consultation.
Good on 'em. Maybe all the consultants being hired in the gov, local gov and quango field should be at least pointed their way and asked (at tax payer's expense) to write on one side of A4 a justification how this family can do it and they couldn't join up two LEGO blocks without a 6-year consultation.
Time to renew our vows!
If the missus will have me... 'to have and to hold, for richer or greener... so long as the days can go on' - Tories use green taxes to promote marriage
'...money raised from the taxes would be placed in a "family fund" to ensure increases are matched pound-for-pound by reductions in the taxation burden elsewhere.'
Sounds a good match to this?: CARBON LEGACY
'...money raised from the taxes would be placed in a "family fund" to ensure increases are matched pound-for-pound by reductions in the taxation burden elsewhere.'
Sounds a good match to this?: CARBON LEGACY
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Funny if it got better ratings than most we watch
World's most boring TV show to measure energy use
Actually, I find this pretty fascinating: 'The power needed by a television for the images varies according to the type of programme broadcast.'
So maybe we get taxed on whether it's EastEnders or X Factor?
Now, I'd switch off were it not for this darned laziness.
Actually, I find this pretty fascinating: 'The power needed by a television for the images varies according to the type of programme broadcast.'
So maybe we get taxed on whether it's EastEnders or X Factor?
Now, I'd switch off were it not for this darned laziness.
Arctic ice thaw may represent a 'tipping point'
There's that word again, may, it occurs an awful lot in anything where climate change is being discussed, so, at least for now, let's stick to the facts that we actually know.
We do know that the albedo effect can be scientifically measured; the white ice cover reflects an awful lot of solar energy back into space, whilst open sea water absorbs a lot more heat energy; therefore the less Arctic ice cover exists, the more heat energy is absorbed by the sea, thereby contributing to warming.
What we don't know is if there is any sort of 'tipping point', beyond which the ice will disappear far more rapidly, allowing far more heat into the Arctic Ocean and contributing significantly to global warming.
However, there is a lot of talk about theoretical tipping points, so when some 'experts' are suggesting that we are already past, at, or at least rapidly reaching the 'tipping point' for the Arctic Ice cap, then perhaps its time to start worrying. This, from PlanetArk, reports on the comments of the 'experts' involved.
"The reason so much (of the Arctic ice) went suddenly is that it is hitting a tipping point that we have been warning about for the past few years"
"In Germany, the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research says Arctic sea ice has 'already tipped'."
"I'd say we are reaching a tipping point or are past it for the ice. This is a strong indication that there is an amplifying mechanism here"
Three different 'experts', three slightly different conclusions, but all enough, perhaps, to give us all some cause for concern.
The thing is, the disappearing Arctic ice will barely affect sea levels at all, but if the Greenland ice sheet follows in the steps of the Arctic ice cap at anything like the same pace, and there are some initial indications that this is happening, as we have already mentioned, then mankind is going to be facing some very serious problems over the coming decades.
"It is a very good lesson, because the ice sheets (on Greenland and Antarctica) have their own tipping points, somewhat harder to get started but far more dangerous for humanity around the globe"
The Greenland ice sheet holds enough fresh water to raise sea levels by about 7 metres if it all melts; that, I read somewhere recently, would do for over half of this planet's major cities.
Anyone fancy a trip to Arks'R'Us?
Addendum:
Cameron could have a bit of a tough time on the subject of climate change; it looks like the Tories' Freedom Association thinks that climate change is all a load of bull. See 'Tory climate change sceptics' from the Guardian.
We do know that this summer a record for the melting of the Arctic ice cap occurred; well, at least as far as accurate human modern records go back; "The Arctic summer sea ice shrank by more than 20 percent below the previous 2005 record low in mid-September to 4.13 million sq km (1.6 million sq miles), according to a 30-year satellite record."
We do know that the albedo effect can be scientifically measured; the white ice cover reflects an awful lot of solar energy back into space, whilst open sea water absorbs a lot more heat energy; therefore the less Arctic ice cover exists, the more heat energy is absorbed by the sea, thereby contributing to warming.
What we don't know is if there is any sort of 'tipping point', beyond which the ice will disappear far more rapidly, allowing far more heat into the Arctic Ocean and contributing significantly to global warming.
However, there is a lot of talk about theoretical tipping points, so when some 'experts' are suggesting that we are already past, at, or at least rapidly reaching the 'tipping point' for the Arctic Ice cap, then perhaps its time to start worrying. This, from PlanetArk, reports on the comments of the 'experts' involved.
"The reason so much (of the Arctic ice) went suddenly is that it is hitting a tipping point that we have been warning about for the past few years"
"In Germany, the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research says Arctic sea ice has 'already tipped'."
"I'd say we are reaching a tipping point or are past it for the ice. This is a strong indication that there is an amplifying mechanism here"
Three different 'experts', three slightly different conclusions, but all enough, perhaps, to give us all some cause for concern.
The thing is, the disappearing Arctic ice will barely affect sea levels at all, but if the Greenland ice sheet follows in the steps of the Arctic ice cap at anything like the same pace, and there are some initial indications that this is happening, as we have already mentioned, then mankind is going to be facing some very serious problems over the coming decades.
"It is a very good lesson, because the ice sheets (on Greenland and Antarctica) have their own tipping points, somewhat harder to get started but far more dangerous for humanity around the globe"
The Greenland ice sheet holds enough fresh water to raise sea levels by about 7 metres if it all melts; that, I read somewhere recently, would do for over half of this planet's major cities.
Anyone fancy a trip to Arks'R'Us?
Addendum:
Cameron could have a bit of a tough time on the subject of climate change; it looks like the Tories' Freedom Association thinks that climate change is all a load of bull. See 'Tory climate change sceptics' from the Guardian.
Mr. Deeds and Mr. SME go to town
Small firms’ strategies include going green
At least they qualified the 85% figure with the rather necessary word...'claim'.
My faith in research of this sort is well-known, and this is one of those where you wonder who of the remaining 15% , on being asked 'are you going to go more enviro-friendly?' decided on a 'nah'.
More worthy of note is that qualitatively, the majority of these firms do not feel they are being supported by the government in their efforts. They want government advice on best practice. That would be advice... from our government... on the best way to handle this? Hmmn.
At least they qualified the 85% figure with the rather necessary word...'claim'.
My faith in research of this sort is well-known, and this is one of those where you wonder who of the remaining 15% , on being asked 'are you going to go more enviro-friendly?' decided on a 'nah'.
More worthy of note is that qualitatively, the majority of these firms do not feel they are being supported by the government in their efforts. They want government advice on best practice. That would be advice... from our government... on the best way to handle this? Hmmn.
Hot 'n 'Am I bovvered?'
This just in from HMG - Homeowners to get green boiler rating
The link didn't work, again, so I'm afraid it's a full print of the PR... again
On balance this seems like a welcome opportunity to improve one's green awareness, though for some there may be a less than welcome sting in the tail (I'm guessing most of those old , inefficient boilers may be owned by those ill-equipped to do much about an upgrade - maybe a better source for funds blown on box-ticking comms efforts? One wonders how much this bit of news will be shared around to those most able to benefit). And, these days, what you know soon gets known by who else? HIP, hip... who levies rate charges again?
Here's the full piece, without the talking head puff, but do go through to the end as there are links to some useful bits and bobs:
From today homeowners can ask for a free A-G energy rating for their boiler with advice to help cut fuel bills, when the engineer visits.
Heating and hot water bills are the biggest energy costs households face each month, yet many people are unaware the average boiler is 'E' rated and could produce over 50 per cent more heat - making the recommended improvements could cut fuel bills by hundreds of pounds and reduce carbon emissions.
The energy assessment includes a checklist of efficiency improvements. For example, a family could save nearly £100 a year just by taking a few a simple steps like getting a 75mm water cylinder jacket, installing heating controls and insulating the hot water pipes.
Longer term measures such as changing from a low G rated boiler to an A rated one could save over £200 a year and cut up to 2.7 tonnes of carbon off a household's carbon footprint.
According to the Heating and Hot Water Industry Council there are still around 4 million old, very inefficient boilers in use in homes, most of which will still be operating in 2010. Replacing these would save two and half a million tonnes of C02 each year by 2010.
Most businesses have rising energy costs. The Carbon Trust estimates that hot water accounts for about 60% of total energy bills for commercial and industrial buildings. [I was surprised at this].
Four year energy efficiency loans of up to £100,000 pounds are available to eligible small and medium companies (SMEs) to help them make changes sooner rather than later. It is also possible to apply for tax relief via enhanced capital allowances - if a business invests in energy-saving machinery it can write off the whole cost of the equipment against taxable profits in the year of purchase.
Only 20% of new gas boilers installed in 2003 were A or B rated. The Government has raised the energy performance standards for new and replacement central-heating boilers - now 95% of new gas boilers installed now are A or B rated condensing boilers.
Peter Thom, President IDHEE said:
"The Institute of Domestic Heating and Environmental Engineers fully support this initiative to raise awareness of how inefficient and wasteful old boilers are. Faithful boilers can last longer than 15 years, but they have a detrimental effect on the environment. Installing a modern condensing boiler with new controls can save up to 40% on fuel bills and carbon dioxide emissions and don't forget that over 80% of energy used in the home is for heating and hot water" [Which seems to make it very sensible to look at getting government and loan bodies' heads together on an even greater, and better publicised (to those below) package where all who can benefit do so asap].
More information on Enhanced Capital Grants
More information on interest free energy - efficiency loans
The link didn't work, again, so I'm afraid it's a full print of the PR... again
On balance this seems like a welcome opportunity to improve one's green awareness, though for some there may be a less than welcome sting in the tail (I'm guessing most of those old , inefficient boilers may be owned by those ill-equipped to do much about an upgrade - maybe a better source for funds blown on box-ticking comms efforts? One wonders how much this bit of news will be shared around to those most able to benefit). And, these days, what you know soon gets known by who else? HIP, hip... who levies rate charges again?
Here's the full piece, without the talking head puff, but do go through to the end as there are links to some useful bits and bobs:
From today homeowners can ask for a free A-G energy rating for their boiler with advice to help cut fuel bills, when the engineer visits.
Heating and hot water bills are the biggest energy costs households face each month, yet many people are unaware the average boiler is 'E' rated and could produce over 50 per cent more heat - making the recommended improvements could cut fuel bills by hundreds of pounds and reduce carbon emissions.
The energy assessment includes a checklist of efficiency improvements. For example, a family could save nearly £100 a year just by taking a few a simple steps like getting a 75mm water cylinder jacket, installing heating controls and insulating the hot water pipes.
Longer term measures such as changing from a low G rated boiler to an A rated one could save over £200 a year and cut up to 2.7 tonnes of carbon off a household's carbon footprint.
According to the Heating and Hot Water Industry Council there are still around 4 million old, very inefficient boilers in use in homes, most of which will still be operating in 2010. Replacing these would save two and half a million tonnes of C02 each year by 2010.
Most businesses have rising energy costs. The Carbon Trust estimates that hot water accounts for about 60% of total energy bills for commercial and industrial buildings. [I was surprised at this].
Four year energy efficiency loans of up to £100,000 pounds are available to eligible small and medium companies (SMEs) to help them make changes sooner rather than later. It is also possible to apply for tax relief via enhanced capital allowances - if a business invests in energy-saving machinery it can write off the whole cost of the equipment against taxable profits in the year of purchase.
Only 20% of new gas boilers installed in 2003 were A or B rated. The Government has raised the energy performance standards for new and replacement central-heating boilers - now 95% of new gas boilers installed now are A or B rated condensing boilers.
Peter Thom, President IDHEE said:
"The Institute of Domestic Heating and Environmental Engineers fully support this initiative to raise awareness of how inefficient and wasteful old boilers are. Faithful boilers can last longer than 15 years, but they have a detrimental effect on the environment. Installing a modern condensing boiler with new controls can save up to 40% on fuel bills and carbon dioxide emissions and don't forget that over 80% of energy used in the home is for heating and hot water" [Which seems to make it very sensible to look at getting government and loan bodies' heads together on an even greater, and better publicised (to those below) package where all who can benefit do so asap].
More information on Enhanced Capital Grants
More information on interest free energy - efficiency loans
'Dere was dese tree fella's...
Amazon jungle could be lost in 40 years, say campaigners
OK, there's 'could' and 'campaigners' in there to add a slight eyebrow kink, but really, can we ignore this at the expense of some of the petty nonsense that usually gets obsessed about?
OK, there's 'could' and 'campaigners' in there to add a slight eyebrow kink, but really, can we ignore this at the expense of some of the petty nonsense that usually gets obsessed about?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)